DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the isolator (claim 4), wheeled trolley, jack (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: docking station.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation, “A method for installing a macerator unit comprising: lifting a macerator unit using a wheeled trolley with a jack;” should read -- A method for installing a macerator unit, the method comprising the steps of: lifting a macerator unit using a wheeled trolley with a jack;--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,5,7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2013/205489 A1 to Rakoczy.
Regarding claim 1, Rakoczy discloses an apparatus for docking a macerator (fig. 5,7) comprising a base plate 7 with a front edge and a back edge (fig. 7); a back plate 6 extending upwards from the back edge of the base plate (fig. 5); a drain pipe 21-17-5 extending from the back plate to a drain connector for engaging with a drain outlet 26 of a macerator 123 (fig. 7); and a water pipe 27-22-18 extending from the back plate to a water connector for engaging with a water supply inlet of the macerator (fig. 7), wherein the drain connector and the water connector are positioned nearer to the front edge of the base plate than the back edge of the base plate (fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rakoczy further discloses the drain connector 21-17-5 and the water connector 27-22-18 provide vertical connections to the macerator 123 (fig. 5, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Rakoczy further discloses the back plate 6 further comprises a guide 24 configured to engage with a macerator 123 unit and guide the macerator unit to a correct position relative to the base plate 7.
Regarding claim 7, Rakoczy further discloses an attachment bracket 33,34 for fixing the macerator 123 to the base plate 7.
Regarding claim 8, Rakoczy further discloses the back plate 6 is removably attached 33,34 ([para 0031])to the base plate 7.
Regarding claim 9, Rakoczy further discloses the back edge of the base plate 7 is angled to a plane of a base plate (fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakoczy as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Rakoczy discloses a macerator 123 and positioning the macerator unit over apparatus and lowering the macerator unit to connect the macerator unit to a water supply and a drain (fig. 5, 7). Rakoczy does not disclose a lifting a macerator unit using a wheeled trolley with a jack. Instead, Rakoczy indicates macerator easily connected and movable without the use of tools ([para 0003]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rakoczy by causing the macerator to be lifted with assistance from a wheeled trolley and jack in order to facilitate easier portability. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular size and weight limitations ([0041]) and it appears that the device of Rakoczy would work appropriately if utilized with the claimed wheeled trolley and jack for lifting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
More specifically, US 2009/0255045 to Sakurai is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a portable toilet 1 where packs or excretion and contained into a flexible bag 8 like container to form hermetically seal the pack.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached 571-270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
35 USC §112
MPEP § 710.05.
35 U.S.C. § 103
2144.04: Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale (“Design Choice”)
2144.04(I) - Aesthetic Design Changes
2144.04(II) - Elimination of a Step or an Element and its Function
2144.04(III) - Automating Manual Activity
2144.04(IV) - Changes in Size, Shape, or Sequence of Adding Ingredients
Requirements for Use: 1) claimed feature involves change in size or proportion, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients; 2) art teaches general conditions (i.e. art must disclose a substitute to some degree); 3) specification does not disclose criticality of the claimed feature (i.e. solves any problem or provides unexpected results); and 4) substitute contained in the art would appear to work equally well.
Example 1 (changes in size or proportion (dimension); TQAS Notes)
Nash is silent regarding slats that are spaced 4 inches apart from each other. Instead, Nash indicates that the slats are preferably spaced 3 inches apart. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to space the slats of Nash 4 inches apart because Applicant has not disclosed that spacing the slats 4 inches apart provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nash’s crib, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Nash or the claimed 4 inch spacing because both spacing dimensions would perform the same function of preventing an infant from falling-out equally well considering the typical size of an infant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Nash to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a
modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Nash. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Example 2 (changes in size or proportion (angle of degree); TQAS Notes)
Marmor is silent regarding an angle of 135 degrees. Instead, Marmor discloses that the angle is obtuse, i.e. between 90 and 180 degrees, and this clearly includes an angle of 135 degrees. Applicant has not disclosed that having the lugs extend at this specific angle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the anchor of Marmor, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with the lugs extending at any obtuse angle. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Marmor such that the lugs on the anchor extended at an angle of 135 degrees because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Marmor.
Example 3 (changes in size or proportion (range); TQAS QEM dated 11/14/19)
Regarding claim 3, Smith is silent regarding the needle having a proximal end with a diameter of between 2 mm and 2.5mm. Instead, Smith discloses a cannula (100) having a maximum transverse dimension at the distal end of “approximately 0.1 inches” ([0030]) or 2.54mm). It appears that the device of Smith would operate equally well with the claimed diameter since the proximal end of the needle is intended to reside within the distal end of a cannula with an approximate largest diameter of 2.54 mm. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (Spec, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause he device of Smith to have a maximum proximal diameter of between 2 mm and 2.5 mm, because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Smith.
Example 4 (changes in size or proportion; Corp Training dated 2/24/21) – reference drawing not to scale (no angles, proportions, or dimensions)
Regarding claim 2, German in view of Hyland is silent regarding the angle of the valve seat of between 10-80 degrees with respect to the horizontal axis. Instead, German discloses the check valve has a valve seat 402 positioned at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the hydrant shoe (col. 7, ll. 15-17, Fig. 2, the longitudinal axis is the horizontal axis of the device). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of German in view of Hyland by causing the angle of the valve seat to be between 10- 80 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the angle be “tilted”) and it appears that the device of German in view of Hyland would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
2144.05: Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
2144.05(I) - Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
Requirements for Use: 1) art range partially or fully overlaps with claimed range; or 2) art range does not overlap claimed range, but is close.
Example 1 (general obviousness; TQAS QEM dated 11/14/19)
Regarding claim 1, Smith is silent regarding the angle being between 10 and 20 degrees. Instead, Smith discloses that the angle is between 5 and 45 degrees ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Smith from between 5 and 45 to between 10 and 20 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0012] indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2144.05(II) - Routine Optimization
Requirements for Use: 1) claimed value or range is recognized by PHOSITA as a “result effective variable” – “a variable which achieves a recognized result;” and 2) claimed value or range does not overlap with art’s value or range.
Example 1 (Result Effective Variable; TQAS QEM dated 11/14/19)
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses the distal portion comprising a sharp tip 212 and the length of the distal portion between the tip and the transition section 208 is “approximately 0.5 inches” or 12.7mm ([0031]). However, Smith does not expressly disclose the length of the distal portion between the tip and the transition section to be between 20mm and 25mm as required by the claim. Smith discloses ([0005]) that the distance the needle protrudes from a cannula when the needle is inserted into the cannula needs to be optimized to “guide the instrument set into the surgical site of a patient or to optimally penetrate the tissue.” As seen in Fig. 3, the needle protrudes from the cannula near the distalmost end of the transition region and as such the length of the distal end of the device is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the length of the distal end changes the protruding distance which affects guidance and ease of penetration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Smith by making the length of the distal portion be between 20mm and 25mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
2144.06: Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose
Requirements for Use: 1) secondary reference teaching functional equivalency of two structures in the art.
Example 1 (Art Recognized Equivalence; examiner example dated 3/2/20)
Manning does not teach a plurality of clips disposed on said fluid reservoir, wherein said
plurality of clips provides a releasable attachment between said fluid reservoir of said fluid application device and the textile base member. Instead Manning teaches a hook and loop fastener (16), wherein said hook and loop fastener provides a releasable attachment between said fluid reservoir of said fluid application device and the textile base member. Chen teaches that clips and hook and loop fasteners are functional equivalents (¶0037). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the hook and loop fastener of Manning with clips as taught by Chen, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06.
For reasons to combine, the best practice is a specific technical reason TSM (teaching, suggestion, motivation) from the art itself. Generic reasons to combine are easy to write but not our best foot forward.
"Therefore, in consideration of Boulieris, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a bidet attachment having a chassis and mounting discs with a snap fit mechanism and a water lever with auto shut off mechanism in view of Gupta because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."
EXAMPLES
In claim 1, the recitation, “a hydrogen generation unit comprising at least one of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell, or a solid polymer electrolysis (SPE) cell configured to generate hydrogen gas” is unclear as to whether the system can have both the PEM and SPE or just one or the other. For clarity, the Examiner suggests, for example, --a hydrogen generation unit configured to generate hydrogen gas, the hydrogen generation unit comprising a proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell, or a solid polymer electrolysis (SPE) cell --. Since claims 2-11 and in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same rejection. Correction is required. 112B OR CLM OBJECTION
In claim 2, the recitation, “the enclosure is configured to either: receive a human, or condition air of a building” is unclear. As to the limitation, “the enclosure is configured to either: receive a human” is unclear. To clarify that the enclosure does not encompass or connect to the human, the Examiner suggests alternative wording, for example, “sized and configured”. For context, “sized” addresses the capacity of the enclosure and “configured” addresses the setup of the enclosure. The Examiner also requests clarification on how the enclosure is configured to “condition” the air (i.e., is it air-condition or a humid condition). Recommended language, –the enclosure is sized and configured to either: receive a human, or condition the air of a building --. Clarification and correction is requested. CLM OBJECTION
In Claim 1, line 1, “A control method for a pool cleaning apparatus, comprising: determining” should read – A control method for a pool cleaning apparatus, the method comprising the steps of: determining --. Appropriate correction is required. Since claims 2-10 are in the chain of dependency, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
In claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 15-16, 18-19, the phrase, “wire harness type” is vague and/or indefinite. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (wire harness) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite because it is unclear what the term "type" is intended to convey. Appropriate correction is required. Since claims 2-10 are in the chain of dependency, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
In claim 1, the recitation, “controlling the pool cleaning apparatus to move in a pool” is not clear. The Examiner requests clarification on which feature causes the controlling movement to “move” the pool cleaning apparatus. In paragraph 0027 of the Specification, the pool cleaning apparatus includes a moving mechanism as well as defines the pool apparatus. For improved clarity, the Examiner respectively suggests amending the claim language, for example, controlling a moving mechanism for the pool cleaning apparatus to move in a pool. Since claims 2-10 are in the chain of dependency, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
In claim 11, the recitation, “real-time sensed data” lacks antecedent basis and should read –the real-time sensed data--. Since claims 12-19 are in the chain of dependency, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is interpreted as a product and process in the same claim and is considered improper. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, and not the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Since claims 12-19 are in the chain of dependency to claim 11, they too are subjected to the same rejection. 19/234,860
PNG
media_image3.png
630
888
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
348
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
18/548895
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention No
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record No
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation: good = 1a, 3c, 3e; to improve = 1c, 1d, 2c, 2h, 3i; 892; ODP
2) Coaching and Mentoring Feedback: Explanation: ODP Rejection Needs Attention
It is noted that claim 9 was included in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, see page 7 of the OA. However, claim 9 is a canceled claim.
The double patenting rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 10-12, and 14 as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 12,084,882 is improper for failing to disclose all of the limitations defined in application claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 14.
• The OA indicates that patented claims 1-13 disclose all of the limitations defined in application claims 1, 4-7, 10-12, and 14, see page 7 of the OA.
• In regard to application independent claim 1, patented claims 1-4 fail to claim the following limitations defined in application claim 1: “the obstacle is moveable relative to the ride surface” and “a reservoir below the ride surface comprising a first water containment area and a second water containment area separated by a separation wall”.
• In regard to application independent claim 1, patented claims 5-9 and 11-13 fail to claim the following limitations defined in application claim 1: “the first water containment area and a second water containment area separated by a separation wall” and “wherein a height of the water on the ride surface may be controlled by adjusting the amount of the water in the first and second containment areas aster the water passes over the obstacle”.
• In regard to application independent claim 1, patented claim 10 fails to claim the following limitations defined in application claim 1: “the obstacle is moveable relative to the ride surface”, “a reservoir below the ride surface comprising a first water containment area and a second water containment area separated by a separation wall”, and “wherein a height of the water on the ride surface may be controlled by adjusting the amount of the water in the first and second containment areas after the water passes over the obstacle”.
• In addition, the OA failed to provide an explanation for why it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims to include the missing limitations claimed in application claim 1.
In regard to application claims 4-7, 10-12, and 14, these claims depend upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies as outlined above with regard to application claim 1
Application Number: 18303523 Non-Final Rejection
Explanation:good = 1a, 2h, 3c, 3e; 892 ; areas to improve = 1c, 1d, 2c, 3c, 3e
Application Number: 18023023; Type of Action: Allowability Notice
Explanation:good = 1a, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2h, 3c, 3e, 3h, 3i; 892; RFA;credit for indicia 1c & 1d provided based upon NOA dated 9/5/24; accolades for RFA
Application Number: 18038323; Type of Action: Non-Final Rejection
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention No
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record No
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation: good = 1a, 3e; suggested areas of improvement = 1c, 1d, 2c, 2h, 3c, 3i; 892
2) Coaching and Mentoring Feedback: Explanation: As a best practice, the rejection should not reference a search report for claim mapping. It should be noted that as a result of applicant's amendment to the claims dated 5/23/23, the new claim numbers (17-33) in the application do not match the claim numbers in the search report.
Application Number: 18114422; Type of Action: Allowability Notice
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention Yes
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record Yes
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation: good = 1a, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2h, 3c, 3h, 3i; 892; RFA; credit for indicia 1c & 1d (and RFA) provided based on EPQ dated
Application Number: 18512660; Type of Action: Allowability Notice
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention Yes
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record Yes
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation: good = 1a, 1c, 2a, 2h, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3h, 3i; 892; RFA
Application Number: 17932250; Type of Action: Non-Final Rejection
Explanation of Error: Regarding claim 1, although not brought as a non-compliance, the mapping is not ideal - pool area (identified as 1) appears to include the plurality of chambers (identified as 26), although the pool area and plurality of chambers appear to be distinct elements, and claim 1 later requires that the plurality of chambers perform the function of "releasing water into the pool area to generate a wave in the pool area," confirming that these elements are distinct. As a result, item 1 cannot serve as the "pool area," because item 26 is subsumed by item 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim requires "a side of the plurality of chambers," "a wall defining an edge of the pool on a side of the pool toward the plurality of chambers," and "a fluid flow path from an interior of a chamber to the pool area." Please note that the rejection points to paras. 37 and 48 for these features, however it is unclear how the reference reads on these features.
Regarding claim 3, the claim requires "the interior wall is separated from the wall defining the edge of the pool by at least 2 meters," and the rejection points to Fig. 3a and para. 38, however, it is unclear how the reference reads on these features.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires "a gap is defined by the separation of the interior wall to the wall defining the edge of the pool." The rejection identifies the gap as items 12, 14, and 16. However, it is unclear how these items serve as the claimed gap.
Regarding claim 5, the claim requires "the gap includes a floor for supporting a spectator." The rejection interprets the reference's item 7 as the claimed floor. However, the floor must be in the gap.
Regarding claim 6, the claim requires "electrical equipment positioned in the gap." The rejection interprets the reference's item 48 as the claimed electrical equipment. However, the electrical equipment must be in the gap.
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention No
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record No
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation: good = 1a, 3e;suggested areas to improve = 1c, 1d, 2c, 2h, 3c, 3i; 89
Application Number: 18104676;Type of Action: Allowability Notice
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention Yes
Indicia 2: Clarity of the Record: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes clarity of the record Yes
Indicia 3: Compact Prosecution: The examiner's written prosecution record promotes compact prosecution Yes
Explanation:good = 1a, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2h, 3c, 3e, 3h, 3i, 892; RFA
Application Number: 18411308; Type of Action: Non-Final Rejection
Indicia 1c & 1d - good description and use of state of the art reference.
STREAMLINE REVIEW
Claims 1 and 15 - two Clarity issues:
1. Does Gupta disclose all the claimed features, or not? Because a secondary reference is used, the answer is no. "Although Gupta discloses all of the limitations of the invention including two disc shaped securing mechanism via screws and/or any equivalent mechanism (see col. 8, line 57-61), and Gupta does disclose other features within the device that use a “snap” mechanism (see col. 11, line 41; col. 13, lines 21-25), the Gupta reference fails to explicitly disclose a chassis configured to mount to two mounting discs via a snap fit mechanism, as claimed; thus, attention is directed to the Birsel reference, an analogous art, reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which teaches the use of a snap fit mechanism 74 in Figures 4, 6, 9-10 for securing component features in a toilet 10.
2. What legal concept are you using? Functional equivalence? When using a legal concept, indicate the MPEP section and write rejection using the format similar to the art unit Legal Concept examples (provided in today's email; TQAS approved examples).
Claim 8
For reasons to combine, the best practice is a specific technical reason TSM (teaching, suggestion, motivation) from the art itself. Generic reasons to combine are easy to write but not our best foot forward.
"Therefore, in consideration of Boulieris, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a bidet attachment having a chassis and mounting discs with a snap fit mechanism and a water lever with auto shut off mechanism in view of Gupta because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."
Application Number: 18591779; Type of Action: Streamline-Non-Final Rejection
inherency issue, please see comments below in clarity section
credit for indicia 1c & 1d
Clarity of the Record Coaching Comments:
For the rejection claim 1, inherency is invoked on pg. 4 of the OA. "Where the prior art reference is inherently capable of performing the function described in a functional limitation (i.e., ligature resistant), such functional limitation does not define the claimed apparatus over such prior art reference, regardless of whether the prior art reference explicitly discusses such capacity for performing the recited function. In addition, where there is reason to believe that such functional limitation may be an inherent characteristic of the prior art reference, Applicant is required to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art reference does not possess the characteristic relied upon." On one side, it's viewed as positive OA expressly invokes inherency, as many examiners do not use the word. On the other side, when inherency is invoked, it must be supported with reasoning based in facts from the reference, pointing out how that feature is necessary present in the reference. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the OA does not provide factual support from the reference or reasoning as to how it "inherently" performs the function, it just proclaims the feature is inherent.
suggested areas to improve = 2b, 2c
Application Number: 18743243-error
Item 1
Quality Major Activity: Quality Major Activity #6 : Making proper rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with supporting rationale, or determining how claim(s) distinguish over the prior art
Explanation of Error: Regarding claim 1, Sladek's bowl body (shell 10 and conical bottom 11) has no "outlet openings arranged in said bowl body," as the only perforations (18) are located in a separate diffuser plate (16) and not in the bowl body itself. Sladek also lacks a "splash guard with a filling opening arranged on said bowl body," because the features identified in the rejection (e.g. items 14, 15, and 17) are internal vapor control components and not a splash guard mounted on the bowl body.
Item 2
Quality Major Activity: Quality Major Activity #6 : Making proper rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with supporting rationale, or determining how claim(s) distinguish over the prior art
Explanation of Error: Regarding claim 9, the rejection takes the position that the "outlet openings" with "different diameter openings" is an obvious modification of Sladek's structure as a mere dimensional modification (citing MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). However, this doctrine applies only when the prior art (primary or secondary reference) already contains different size diameter openings, and the change is merely a matter of resizing or proportioning a particular element. By contrast, Sladek does not disclose any "outlet openings" with "different diameter openings." In other words, the concept of using different diameter openings, or reasoning articulating the same, is missing entirely from the combination.
Regarding claim 10, as described earlier, Sladek does not disclose "adjacent outlet openings" in "said bowl body" - its only openings are perforations (18) in a separate diffuser plate (16), not in the bowl itself, leaving no spacing relationship to compare to an outlet opening diameter. Because the reference lacks the claimed structure entirely, the rejection's dimensional modification rationale is improper, as one cannot modify the spacing of nonexistent bowl body outlet openings. Even assuming that Sladek's bowl body includes "outlet openings," the rejection's reasoning for claim 10 is still not sound because nothing in Sladek suggests varying the spacing to diameter relationship of the openings, nor is there any teaching or functional need in Sladek that would motivate such a modification. The rejection's conclusion that the spacing requirement is "merely a relative dimension" is therefore conclusory and unsupported under KSR, because it lacks an articulated rationale explaining why a PHOSITA would alter the spacing and diameter relationship of Sladek's openings.
Indicia 1: Search and Prior Art: The examiner's search and the prior art found encompass the inventive concept as defined in the disclosure for the examined invention Yes
good = 1a, 1c, 1d, 3h, 3i; suggested areas to improve = 2c, 2h, 3c
Application Number: 18607149; Type of Action: Non-Final Rejection-error
Quality Major Activity: Quality Major Activity #4 : Analyzing disclosure and claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112
Explanation of Error: The Office action is brought as a Non-Final rejection, however, it contains no rejections. Since the Non-Final provides no rejections - only objections and a reason for allowance - it should have been brought as an Ex Parte Quayle.
Claim 10 improperly depends from claim 11, which is not a previously presented claim, in violation of 35 USC 112(d). Because claim 10 attempts to incorporate limitations from a later numbered claim, its scope is also indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 17 is improper because it is a method claim that depends from claim 11, an apparatus claim, contrary to 35 USC 112(d), which requires dependent claims to further limit the claims of the same statutory class. This improper dependency makes it clear what method steps are required, resulting in definiteness under 35 USC 112(b).
Explanation:good = 1a, 3i; suggested areas to improve = 1. review requirements of Ex Parte Quayle actions v. Non-Final rejections; 2. check applications for improper dependencies; 3. check for grammatical issues - claim 7 indicateds "the shape the patch" - which can be addressed as an objection.
Application Number: 18772264
Explanation: good = 1a, 1c, 1d; suggested areas to improve = 2b, 2c, 2h, 3c; form; 112(b); legal concepts
Form - The indication of objections/allowability does not belong in the Conclusion paragraph. Rather, it belongs under a separate heading before the Conclusion paragraph.
Objection/112(b) - Regarding claim 1, the OA should include an objection or rejection for lack of antecedent basis for the phrase, "with the attachment between the upper and lower attachment elements"
103 (Design Choice) - Regarding claim 1, a finding of obviousness based on design choice requires that that prior art perform the same function, in the same way, and achieve the same result, as the claimed structure. Here, the Office action does not establish that relocating Ohara's fastening arrangement to provide the claimed upper and lower attachment elements at a predetermined location would preserve the same sealing, alignment, and assembly interaction disclosed in Ohara. Because the asserted modification is not shown to be functionally equivalent or result neutral, the requirements for a design choice rationale under 2144.04 (IV)(A) are not met.
Said another way, the design choice position recited in the Office action is not merely relocating a part. Ohara employs a housing-based attachment scheme in which fastening occurs between spout housing components, with the sensor unit merely captured or supported by those housings. By contrast, the claim requires a sensor-based structure in which the sensor unit itself includes an upper attachment element that directly engages a corresponding lower attachment element on the sensor cover. This difference changes which component defines attachment and retention and therefore reflects a fundamentally different structural arrangement rather than a mere relocation of parts. Because the attachment feature that is relocated in the rejection is a functional load bearing and sealing structure that defines how the sensor is retained and sealed - rather than a purely aesthetic or interchangeable placement - its relocation alters the operative relationship of the components and therefore cannot be dismissed as a mere matter of design choice.
19/306943
The above Non-Final posting has at least a couple issues that need to be worked out, and I don’t want to give the impression that issues can be posted to me and I’ll give my opinion on the fly and the rejection can be fixed later. My role for primary examiners is not like it is for junior examiners. The rejection should be in final form when posted, going forward I want these issues worked out before posting them to me. Instead of giving feedback, I should be using Quality Tracker. Here are a couple:
1) 101 rejection of claim 2 – Please speak to a TQAS before reposting to me. Because the word “human” is in the claim does not mean it’s a 101. (Also, a concern is if I say it may be a 112(b) I do not want to see a quick 112(b) added without forethought.) In summary, the 101 was not well thought out. When you speak to a TQAS, please understand why it’s not a 101, so future OAs reflect that understanding. Many applications we deal with have “configured to” language that reference a human or a body part.
2) Missed 112(b) of “at least one of A or B” of claim 1. Please speak to a TQAS. Again, I do not want to see a quick 112(b) added because you may think I want a 112(b) there, I want to see that the issue was thoroughly reviewed and addressed, and I do not have that confidence. If the applicant wants a clear defined group, they would make a Markush group. Here, the language is open to grammatical interpretation.
18591779-103 EXAMPLE
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6, 8,14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over GB 2490523 A to Philpot in view of BR PI 1104651 A2 to Braskem
and CA 2960809 A1 to Boeltl. Re. claim 1, Philpot discloses a toilet comprising a frame
(see figures 3-4 below) defining a hollow interior (see cavity opening of bowl interior and
rear side figure 3) and including a top surface with a seat assembly 1 (defined by top
surface adjacent opening); a bowl assembly (conical portion; see figure 1 below)
positioned within said hollow interior of said frame and supported by said frame; and
wherein said frame is formed by rotational molding, in part (see abstract; claim 5 and
page 2, lines 8-14). Philpot does not disclose the toilet being ligature resistant and the
toilet being a monolithic structure. Instead, Philpot discloses a plastic toilet formed from
two halves which are rotationally molded from Low Density Polyethylene resin and
joined together; however, Braskem teaches a monolithic structure (see figure 1) formed
by rotational molding (i.e., a single piece; see page 1, lines 10-11). Braskem is silent as
to the toilet being ligature resistant. Instead, Braskem discloses manufacturing a
monolithic piece using the rotational molding process which allows for the extraction of
a seamless, single piece with rounded surfaces (abstract; see figure below); however,
Boeltl (see figure below) teaches a monolithic structure (see para 0003, 0027; figure 1
below) that is ligature resistant (see para 0003,0026 and 0040; abstract) whereas the
seat does not rotate relative to the bowl nor can be removed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to modify Philpot as taught by Braskem and Boeltl to
form a monolithic device by rotational molding for ease of extraction of the device from a
mold in a single piece (e.g., to prevent rotatable movable parts) and whereby the
surfaces of the device by rotational molding are rounded to prevent ligature points which
cause harm to users.
Re. claim 2, Philpot as modified by Braskem and Boeltl, Philpot discloses a curved front
surface positioned between a left surface and a right surface (see figure 4 below).
Re. claim 3, Philpot as modified by Braskem and Boeltl, Philpot discloses a rounded
transition edge (rounded edge proximate reference numeral 1; see figure 4 below) is
positioned between said curved front surface and said left surface of said frame, and
wherein a rounded transition edge is positioned between said top surface (defined by
surface having spaced apart holes; see figure 4 below) and said right surface of said
frame.
Re. claim 16, Philpot discloses a method (see abstract) rotationally molding a frame a
frame (see figures 1-4) defining a hollow interior (see figure 2-3) and including a top
surface with a seat assembly 1; attaching a bowl assembly (see conical portion figure 1)
positioned within said hollow interior defined by said frame wherein said bowl assembly
includes a bowl and wherein said frame is seamless and monolithic. Philpot does not
disclose a ligature resistant, seamless, monolithic frame. Instead, Philpot discloses a
frame formed from two halves which are rotationally molded from Low Density
Polyethylene resin and joined together; however, Braskem teaches a monolithic
structure, formed from a single piece (see figure 1), formed by rotational molding (see
page 1, lines 10-11). Braskem is silent as to the toilet being ligature resistant. Instead,
Braskem discloses manufacturing a monolithic piece using the rotational molding
process which allows for the extraction of a seamless, single piece with rounded
surfaces (abstract); however, Boeltl teaches a monolithic structure (see para 0003,
0027) that is ligature resistant (see para 0003,0026 and 0040; abstract) whereas the
seat does not rotate relative to the bowl nor can be removed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to modify Philpot as taught by Braskem and Boeltl to
form a monolithic device by rotational molding for ease of extraction of the device from a
mold in a single piece (e.g., to prevent rotatable movable parts) and whereby the
surfaces of the device by rotational molding are rounded to prevent ligature points which
cause harm to users.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Philpot, Braskem and Boeltl '809 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US
10,030,377 B1 to Boeltl.
Re. claim 4, Philpot modified by Braskem and Boeltl does not disclose a seat assembly
atop the top surface. Instead Philpot discloses a seat assembly 1 defined by a top
surface; however, Boeltl '377 teaches a seat assembly 30,33 atop a top surface (see
figure 16 below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seat of Philpot as
taught by Boeltl '377 to include a seat atop the top surface of the toilet in order to
provide a comfortable and safe seat area for a user.
Re. claim 7, Philpot modified by Braskem and Boeltl '809 does not disclose a seat
assembly including a seat integrally formed with the top surface of said frame. Instead
Philpot discloses a seat assembly 1 defined by a top surface; however, Boeltl '377
teaches a seat assembly including a seat 30,33 atop a top surface (see figure 16
below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seat of Philpot as taught by
Boeltl '377 to include a seat atop the top surface of the toilet in order to provide a
comfortable and safe seat area for a user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Philpot and Braskem and Boeltl '809 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of
U.S. Patent 5,271,105 A to Tyler.
Re. claim 10, Philpot modified by Braskem and Boeltl does not disclose a spray ring
attached at a top surface of said bowl. Instead, Philpot discloses the bowl assembly
includes a bowl (see conical section of figure 1) positioned within said hollow interior of
said frame (see figure 3); however, Tyler teaches a spray ring 8 (see figure 1b below)
attached at a top surface of the bowl 4 (see figure 1a below) between the bowl 4 and
flange 6 (see col. 3, lines 66-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify
the bowl assembly of Philpot such that adding a spray ring attached at an upper surface
of the bowl supplies rinse water to said bowl in order to provide an even spray pattern
for bowl cleansing.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Philpot, Braskem, Boeltl '809 and Tyler as applied to claim 10 above and further in
view of US 11,591,786 B2 to Helmstetter.
Re. claim 13, Philpot modified by Braskem, Boeltl and Tyler does not disclose a
trapway, with a tube opening, attached to a bowl and open to exterior plumbing.
Instead, Philpot discloses a waste pipe 3 attached to an external vacuum extraction
system; however, Helmstetter teaches a bowl assembly 103-104 (see figure below)
includes a trapway 106,116 attached to said bowl, and wherein said trapway includes a
tube opening 105 configured to receive a pipe to connect the toilet to an exterior
plumbing system (see col. 2, lines 65-68 thru col. 3, lines 1-8). It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention to modify Philpot as taught by Helmstetter such that a tube opening attached
to connected to a trapway on one end and a pipe on an opposite end further connected
to an exterior plumbing system facilitates the removal of waste from the bowl
proficiently.
Re. claim 15, Philpot modified by Braskem, Boeltl and Tyler does not disclose a pipe
connecting the toilet to the exterior plumbing system exiting the frame at a bottom
surface opening. Instead, Philpot discloses a waste pipe 3 attached to an external
vacuum extraction system and exits said frame at a rear surface opening; however,
Helmstetter teaches a bowl assembly 103-104 (see figure below) includes a trapway
106,116 attached to said bowl, and wherein said trapway includes a tube opening 105
configured to receive a pipe to connect the toilet to an exterior plumbing system (see
col. 2, lines 65-68 thru col. 3, lines 1-8) and exit the frame at a bottom surface opening
112 Rejection Areas of Focus
- Lack of Antecedent Basis;
- Terms of Degree (eg “substantially,” “about”);
- Subjective Terms (eg “aesthetically pleasing” – not “gelatinous substance”);
- Exemplary Language (eg “for example,” “such as”);
- Misdescription (usually happens when applicant short-hands the claim language).
RED FlAG AREAS
- Enablement
-112(b) rejections based on MPEP 2172.01 have almost no value to us, as their use is extremely limited
3-Legal Concept Examples (e.g. Design Choice, etc.)-See custom FP
Search Notes document:
1. CPC Search - mandatory.
- US and foreign databases mandatory. - avoid limiting search terms - only when the number of references is excessive, and search terms should not excessively limit the CPC search.
- the scope of search, as a best practice, normally exceeds the classification in PE2E
2. Text Search - mandatory.
- Limited Text search by CPC (broadly) only when number of references is excessive, and CPC class should not excessively limit the text search.
3. NPL Search - discretionary but mandatory when application reasonably needs it.
4. Inventor Name Search - mandatory.
5. Similarity search - mandatory.
6. Interference Search - mandatory for Pre-AIA applications.
Over the last few weeks our art unit has been charged with several OPQA errors on what are considered careless-type situations, below are the two examples:
- for an anticipation rejection, in the heading, utilizing § 102(a)(2) form paragraph instead of § 102(a)(1) when relying upon a foreign reference (non-WIPO publication)
GOOD CASE EXAMPLES:
18/748117
19/457531
Re. claim 1, Fergusson discloses a temporary sanitary waste removal system, comprising a tankless gravity flush toilet (Fig. 1) including a toilet drain (28); a water supply riser (22a) with a water lateral (toilet/riser connector) in fluid connection with both the water supply riser and the gravity flush toilet; and
a sanitary riser stack (19) with a waste lateral (33, 33a, 34) in fluid connection at an inlet end with the toilet drain and at an outlet end with the sanitary riser stack.
Fergusson is silent regarding a tankless gravity flush toilet. However, Sloan teaches a tankless gravity flush toilet (Figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tank flush toilet of Fergusson to include the tankless flush valve system of Sloan, in order to eliminate a storage tank and reduce the spatial footprint.
Prosecution Insights