Abstract:
The current invention performs two functions: (1) it operates as a standard cylindrical toilet cleaning brush for toilet-surface-cleaning, and (2) it operates as a toilet plunger for toilet-trap-unclogging. In one embodiment, it is a conventional cylindrical toilet cleaning brush combined with a circular diaphragm. As toilets become more water-efficient, they become more prone to clogging. This invention greatly reduces the aggravation associated with water-saving toilets by providing a toilet-trap-unclogging function discreetly at hand.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS  
       [0001]     This application is a continuation-in-part to my (USA) application Ser. No. 10/731,930 filed Dec. 10, 2003. The benefit of the earlier filing is requested under 35 U.S.C. 120. 
     
    
     STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT  
       [0002]     Not Applicable  
       REFERENCE TO SEQUENCE LISTING, A TABLE, OR A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING COMPACT DISK APPENDIX  
       [0003]     Not Applicable  
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0004]     The current invention relates to two separate groups of household tools: ( 1 ) toilet cleaning brushes, and ( 2 ) toilet plungers. Before the current invention, these two groups of implements were separate and distinct. The current invention combines the functions of the two groups and discloses an interesting new way to unclog a toilet trap.  
         [0005]     The current invention performs two separate and distinct functions: (1) toilet-surface-cleaning, and (2) toilet-trap-unclogging. The prior art includes both toilet related and non-toilet related art. Eight citations of prior art are listed and analyzed. For the toilet, the unclogging function is typically provided by the common household plunger, or force cup, the large-rubber-suction-cup-on-a-stick. For piping systems, the unclogging function is provided by power-driven machinery; the rotating cutter and the snake with a corkscrew-like end for withdrawing snags. For toilets, the need for an effective toilet unclogging device grows as the permitted gallons of water per flush shrinks. Current (US) law allows 1.6 gallons per flush. The current invention makes temperamental toilets easy to live with, without cluttering the bathroom with another device, as it simply replaces the common cylindrical toilet cleaning brush.  
         [0006]     It is important to highlight the differences between toilet-surface-cleaning and toilet-trap-unclogging as they are separate and distinct activities which address separate and distinct problems. Accordingly, toilet-surface-cleaning and toilet-trap-unclogging are achieved with different physical components. The following eight short paragraphs will serve to differentiate toilet-surface-cleaning from toilet-trap-unclogging:  
         [0007]     (1) Toilet-surface-cleaning reduces the organic slime, mineral deposits, hair fibers, sand particles, and rust flakes that accumulate on toilet surfaces.  
         [0008]     (2) Toilet-trap-unclogging restores the flow of waste when toilet paper and/or human waste have formed a blockage in the toilet trap.  
         [0009]     (3) Toilet-surface-cleaning is performed on visible toilet surfaces.  
         [0010]     (4) Toilet-trap-unclogging is performed in the toilet trap, which is largely invisible, except for the first two or so inches which are visible at the mouth of the toilet trap.  
         [0011]     (5) Toilet-surface-cleaning implements touch the surface being cleaned.  
         [0012]     (6) Toilet-trap-unclogging implements use water and/or air to transmit forces to the clog.  
         [0013]     (7) Toilet-surface-cleaning removes a gradual buildup of filth, on a periodic maintenance basis.  
         [0014]     (8) Toilet-trap-unclogging removes an acute stoppage, on an emergency basis.  
         [0015]     Historically, the word ‘cleaning’ (also: ‘cleansing’) has been used loosely to signify both the cleaning function and the unclogging function. Typically, the distinction was not important and was obvious from the context. However, for this application, since the current invention performs both functions, the distinction between ‘cleaning’ and ‘unclogging’ is important, so ‘cleaning’ and ‘unclogging’ will be used precisely.  
         [0016]     The following eight examples of prior art each teach something different about the maintenance of tube-shaped or bowl-shaped surfaces. The following sections will address each of the eight prior art citations, one by one, from the point of view: are they equivalent to the current invention; and, could they be utilized to perform the function of the current invention? If not, how do they differ physically from the current invention; and, how do deficiencies in their functioning help to further illustrate physical differences between them and the current invention.  
         [0017]     For the following eight citations, part-names followed by part-ID-numbers correspond to the drawings in the prior art OR to  FIG. 1  of the current invention.  
         [0018]     Prior Art Citation #1 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 2,738,529 (1950/1956) A. H. Bernet (Combined Sponge and Brush Toilet Bowl Cleaner) (Bernet &#39;52 9 ).  
         [0019]     The Bernet &#39;529 sponge collar  24  has no support on the side facing the operator for roughly 75% of it&#39;s circumference. If used in a toilet trap unclogging (in-and-out) motion, the unsupported majority of the sponge collar  24  would slide freely on head  4 , thereby defeating any plunging forces. Bernet &#39;529 states the sponge collar  24  is held on head  4  by bristles  12 ,  14 , and  18 . No other fasteners are shown in the figures, nor mentioned in the text. Toilet trap unclogging requires some force, for which a poorly supported sponge collar is wholly unsuited. Clearly, if Bernet &#39;529 had desired a toilet trap unclogging device, he would have (at least) encircled the sponge collar  24  with bristles on both sides to hold the sponge collar  24  in place. Even then, a sponge collar has many properties that make it an inferior substitute for a diaphragm. Furthermore, Bernet &#39;529 contains several other design problems that would defeat it&#39;s use as a toilet trap unclogging implement (to be detailed in subsequent paragraphs). If toilet trap unclogging was desired, Bernet &#39;529 would have used a diaphragm instead of a sponge collar. However, a diaphragm would interfere with the primary purpose of Bernet &#39;529, as a sponging/brushing implement. The text of Bernet &#39;529 goes into great detail on using the device in various ways but makes no mention whatsoever of any toilet trap unclogging function.  
         [0020]     The Bernet &#39;529 sponge collar  24  has certain physical attributes that make it useful for rim cleaning, but clearly differentiate it from a diaphragm. Here are six differences:  
         [0021]     (1) Fluid-holding: the Bernet &#39;529 sponge collar  24  is designed to absorb and hold cleaning fluid for the duration of the bowl cleaning procedure. In contrast, a diaphragm holds no fluid.  
         [0022]     (2) Thickness: the Bernet &#39;529 sponge collar  24  is approximately 1.4 inches in thickness. In contrast, the diaphragm in the current invention is 0.04 inches in thickness; a difference of thirty-five times. The word ‘approximately’ is used because the Bernet &#39;529 drawings are not assumed to be to scale but the text suggests that the thickness of the sponge collar  24  is similar to the thickness of a toilet bowl rim.  
         [0023]     (3) Permeability: the Bernet &#39;529 sponge collar  24  is designed to ooze cleaning solution during the bowl cleaning procedure. In contrast, a diaphragm is designed for zero permeability.  
         [0024]     (4) Resiliency speed: A sponge returns to it&#39;s neutral compression size slowly after pressure is released, often taking two or more seconds to return to it&#39;s neutral compression size. This slow recovery makes sponge a poor choice for a seal material where a higher stroke rate is desired. In contrast, a diaphragm seals instantly.  
         [0025]     (5) Particle holding: A sponge has the ability to hold particles in open cells until the particles are rinsed out. In contrast, a diaphragm has a smooth surface which holds no particles.  
         [0026]     (6) Abrasion resistance: A sponge has low resistance to abrasion; it will abrade and decrease in size with use. In contrast, a diaphragm is made with rubber which is both harder and denser than sponge, which greatly increases it&#39;s resistance to abrasion.  
         [0027]     While using the current invention to unclog a toilet trap, the axis of the handle  01  is roughly 45 degrees out of alignment with the beginning of the toilet trap, due to three factors: (1) The trap typically exits the toilet bowl along an axis which is parallel to the floor of the toilet room; (2) Directly opposite the mouth of the toilet trap, typically three inches away, is the syphon hole which directs water released from the toilet tank as a high speed stream into the toilet trap during the toilet flush. There is simply insufficient space at the bottom of the toilet bowl for an implement which is in direct alignment with the axis of the mouth of the trap; and (3) As the water in the toilet bowl is not pristine, the person unclogging the toilet trap has no desire to immerse his or her hand(s) into the toilet bowl water. Therefore, by designing the invention to operate at a roughly 45 degree angle to the axis of the toilet trap, the operator&#39;s hands stay clear of the toilet bowl water while maintaining an effective plunging angle. The exact geometry of each model of toilet bowl can vary; 45 degrees is halfway between vertical and horizontal, which has been shown to be highly effective at toilet trap unclogging, while keeping the operator&#39;s hands clean and dry.  
         [0028]     Another way the current invention provides a wide acceptable angle of application is by using a small diameter shaft  05 . For any required to-and-fro plunging depth, the smaller the shaft  05  diameter, the longer the stroke depth. The stroke depth is limited by the shaft  05  contacting the outer lip of the mouth of the toilet trap, due to the misalignment of the shaft  05  of the implement and the mouth of the toilet trap. To put the phrase ‘small diameter’ in more precise context, here are some measurements for typical model year 2003 toilets. The mouth of the toilet trap is typically three inches in diameter. A typical toilet brush is three inches in diameter. For highly effective toilet-trap-plunging, the shaft  05  of the current invention should generally be 35% or less of the diameter of the mouth of the trap. These measurements permit a full one and one half inch stroke length which is highly effective in unclogging the toilet trap. The Bernet &#39;529 head  4  is characterized by Bernet as ‘enlarged’ and looks to be at least 70% of the trap diameter (although not necessarily drawn to scale). The ‘enlarged’ Bernet &#39;529 head  4  is exactly opposite what is desirable in a plunging implement.  
         [0029]     Another way the current invention provides a wide acceptable angle of application is by using a round (cross-section) shaft  05 . For any required to-and-fro plunging depth, a roundish cross section in the shaft  05  will allow a longer stroke than a squarish cross section. The stroke depth is limited by the shaft  05  contacting the upper lip of the mouth of the toilet trap; a squarish cross section will span the arch of the lip of the mouth of the toilet trap, thereby limiting the stroke length.  
         [0030]     To enable the greatest stroke depth, the current invention uses a round (cross-section) shaft  05  of small diameter.  
         [0031]     The Bernet &#39;529 has neither a round (cross-section) head  4 , nor a small diameter head  4 . Therefore, the Bernet &#39;529 is unsuitable for toilet trap unclogging. This size and shape combination reduces the effective stroke length to zero or nearly zero, thereby defeating any plunging function.  
         [0032]     Just as a broad head  4  or a large diameter head  4  reduces the effective stroke length, a broad tip at the end of the head  4  creates an analogous problem at the bottom of the toilet trap. The current invention minimizes this problem by utilizing a conical tip  06  at the end of shaft  05 . The Bernet &#39;529 magnifies the problem by utilizing a broad end  4 ′.  
         [0033]     Prior Art Citation #2 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 190,123 (1877/1877) B. L. Budd (Gun-Cleaning Brush) (Budd &#39;123).  
         [0034]     The Budd &#39;123 ‘Gun-Cleaning Brush’ is described for cleaning the interior surface of a rifle or shot-gun barrel and is taught in two variations: (1) the twelve-brush stack, and (2) the six-brush plus six-felt (alternating) stack. Either variation is employed via a rigid dowel or a flexible cord. There is no mention that Budd &#39;123 is suitable for unclogging a plugged barrel. A wooden dowel used with a wooden mallet is typically used to tap out a barrel-stuck bullet (called a squib load in the field of ballistics).  
         [0035]     The Budd &#39;123 is structurally different from the current invention in at least four ways:  
         [0036]     (1) The end of the Budd &#39;123 implement consists of an exposed metallic fastener which is suitable for Budd &#39;123 because the end makes no contact with the rifle or shot-gun barrel. In contrast, the end of the current invention is a conical head of bristles, which acts as a skid-plate, in that it lifts the end of the shaft  05  to prevent the tip  06  from contacting the bottom of the trap when the current invention is used in a plunging mode. The current invention is used in a plunging mode with the long axis of the handle  01  at a very different angle from the axis of the mouth of the trap. A 45 degree differential is typical. In contrast, the Budd &#39;123 implement is employed in perfect alignment with the axis of the rifle or shot-gun barrel.  
         [0037]     (2) The Budd &#39;123 ‘felt disks’ are somewhat analogous to the diaphragm in the current invention but the diaphragm is physically mounted in a way which is in stark contrast to the way the felt disks are mounted. The felt disks are clamped hard: “Upon this mandrel they are clamped and held by suitable devices, acting from the ends of the mandrel toward its center”. That from Budd &#39;123 page 2 line 19. The Budd &#39;123 felt disks are layered between metal disks (and clamped) with only their edges exposed to view. In contrast, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is fully visible on both of it&#39;s sides and it is free to flap between rows of bristles.  
         [0038]     (3) The Budd &#39;123 ‘felt disks’ provide a swabbing action as they slide along the barrel of the gun, making contact with the surface. In contrast, when the current invention is inserted into the mouth of a toilet trap and oscillated, the center of the diaphragm  03  oscillates an inch and a half, but the edge of the diaphragm  03  moves very little, if at all. A cone-shaped volume of water is thereby oscillated, which transmits forces to the clog which is located somewhere downstream in the toilet trap.  
         [0039]     (4) The Budd &#39;123 ‘felt disks’ are “held against rotation” (claim #4, line #4). In contrast, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is free to rotate around the shaft  05 . The ability of the diaphragm  03  in the current invention to rotate, or not, has no impact upon the implement.  
         [0040]     Prior Art Citation #3 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 270,979 (1882/1883) C. F. Pike (Flexible Brush For Cleansing Water Closets) (Pike &#39;979).  
         [0041]     The Pike &#39;979’ Flexible Brush for Cleansing Water-Closets&#39; is designed to clean the interior wall surface of a water-closet trap, especially the interior wall surface deep within a water-closet trap, but has no clog removal function. From Pike &#39;979 page 1 line 36 “for operating the same within the trap to remove fecal or other matter from the sides thereof.”. From Pike &#39;979 page 1 line 51 “scraped or cleansed from its walls during the cleansing operation.”. From Pike &#39;979 page 1 line 69 “A brush for removing incrustation from water-closet traps . . . ”. In contrast, the current invention provides the opposite functionality: it provides the trap unclogging function but does not clean the interior wall surface of the trap.  
         [0042]     Today, the interior wall surface deep within the toilet trap is cleaned with chemicals, if at all. By squirting bleach-containing cleaner or an under-the-rim cleaner into the toilet bowl and allowing the chemicals to work for some time, the chemicals reach the surface deep within the toilet trap. This strategy makes sense as the typical toilet trap tapers from approximately three inches in diameter, to approximately two inches in diameter, while bending upward, then downward, with some zig-zags - - - an extremely challenging configuration for a cleaning implement that relies on frictional contact.  
         [0043]     The Pike &#39;979  FIG. 1  shows a non-tapered trap with a smooth curve and no zig-zags. The Pike &#39;979 implement is shown with pinned links, which are great for pulling, but can be challenging in the opposite direction. Pushing something with a bicycle chain would demonstrate the difficulty of such a task.  
         [0044]     The physical structure of the Pike &#39;979 implement differs from the current invention in multiple ways. Here are eight differences.  
         [0045]     (1) The Pike &#39;979 implement has a rigid shaft connected to a highly flexible shaft composed of pinned links, or flexible tube, or spring coil. In contrast, the current invention has a solid rod handle  01  with incidental flexibility.  
         [0046]     (2) The Pike &#39;979 implement has a thick hard rubber scraper or multiple scrapers. In contrast, the current invention has no scraper.  
         [0047]     (3) The Pike &#39;979 implement has no diaphragm. In contrast, the current invention has a diaphragm.  
         [0048]     The difference between a diaphragm and a scraper are worth pointing out here. Although both a scraper and a diaphragm can be produced in a circular shape, the similarity ends there. In a plumbing context, a scraper is a rigid piece of material used to transmit forces from the scraper to the trap surface, via the moving edge of the scraper. In contrast, a diaphragm is a flexible piece of material used to transmit forces from the diaphragm to the trap contents, via the moving center of the diaphragm. A scraper is analogous to a chisel, while a diaphragm is analogous to a pump.  
         [0049]     (4) The Pike &#39;979 implement has multiple brushes; eight are shown in  FIG. 1 . In contrast, the current invention has one brush.  
         [0050]     (5) The Pike &#39;979 implement has multiple disk-shaped brushes or multiple ball-shaped brushes or some combination of disk-shaped brushes and ball-shaped brushes. The multiple brushes are particularly noteworthy because the brushes also affect the alignment of the pinned links. In contrast, the current invention has one conical-head cylindrical brush that does not affect the flexibility, nor alignment, of the mounting shaft, nor handle.  
         [0051]     (6) The Pike &#39;979 implement, considered as one complete implement, is very flexible, regardless of which configuration is chosen. In contrast, the current invention is rigid; it will stand up by itself in a simple stand or leaning into a corner, without falling onto the floor, which is an important sanitation factor.  
         [0052]     (7) The Pike &#39;979 implement has a provision for emitting pressurized water. In contrast, the current invention has no provision for emitting water.  
         [0053]     (8) The Pike &#39;979 implement can be reconfigured into a nearly infinite number of combinations of shaft types, brush types, brush counts, and scraper counts, in various orders, with and without water jetting, to deal with the particular pattern of incrustation at hand. In contrast, the current invention uses a diaphragm to create a pulse of water that does not care if a clog is one inch away or one foot away.  
         [0054]     Prior Art Citation #4 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 1,495,008 (1924/1924) J. A. Feagin (Gun Cleaner) (Feagin &#39;008).  
         [0055]     The Feagin &#39;008 “GUN CLEANER” is designed to instantly scrape the inner wall of a gun barrel of “burnt powder, rust or other foreign matter” (from Feagin &#39;008 page 1 line 63) while at the same time “coat the wall of the bore” (from Feagin &#39;008 page 1 line 66) with oil. There is no mention that Feagin &#39;008 is suitable for unclogging a plugged barrel. Oftentimes, a wooden dowel is used with a wooden mallet to tap out a barrel-stuck bullet (called a squib load in the field of ballistics). Firing a powder charge behind a plugged barrel often results in a burst barrel, sometimes with catastrophic consequences to the marksman and to bystanders on the range. In contrast, the current invention provides the opposite functionality: it provides an unclogging function but does not clean the wall surface deep within.  
         [0056]     The Feagin &#39;008 invention and the current invention both contain some round components, but the similarity quickly ends. The following will illustrate seven physical differences between Feagin &#39;008 and the current invention.  
         [0057]     (1) The Feagin &#39;008 multi-layer mesh scraper  14  is made of metal wire which is first woven into mesh and then punched into disks. Conversely, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is a monolithic piece of rubber-like material. The Feagin &#39;008 mesh scraper  14  is designed to loosen surface debris and let that same debris pass through the porous mesh scraper  14 . In contrast, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is designed to ignore surface debris and pass nothing to the other side.  
         [0058]     (2) The Feagin &#39;008 multi-layer mesh scraper  14  is made to operate in one direction. If pulled backward in the bore, it will bind. In contrast, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is designed to operate in both directions.  
         [0059]     (3) The Feagin &#39;008 invention utilizes an oily cotton wad  12  in it&#39;s construction. While the oily cotton wad  12  is round in the sense that it is forced into contact with a round cross sectional barrel, the oily cotton wad  12  is physically different and serves a different function from the diaphragm  03  in the current invention. The oily cotton wad  12  is made up of many tiny cotton fibers. Conversely, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is a monolithic piece of rubber-like material. The two parts perform opposite functions. The oily cotton wad  12  is designed to grab and hold particulate debris while applying liquid (oil) to the surface of the gun barrel. Conversely, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is designed to ignore particulate debris and oscillate a cone-shaped volume of liquid. Another aspect of the different materials is durability. The oily cotton wad  12  would fall apart if used repeatedly. The diaphragm  03  in the current invention is designed to be used many times.  
         [0060]     (4) The Feagin &#39;008 invention has no operator handle as it is actuated by an exploding powder charge. Feagin &#39;008 contains a support  11  which holds the two surface cleaning components (the multi-layer mesh scraper  14  and the oily cotton wad  12 ). In contrast, the current invention contains a distinct operator handle  01 . The means of actuating Feagin &#39;008 would not be suitable for toilets: firing a powder charge in close proximity to a porcelain bowl of fowl water has serious safety and sanitation ramifications that the reader can readily imagine.  
         [0061]     (5) The Feagin &#39;008 invention has no diaphragm. The current invention has a diaphragm.  
         [0062]     (6) The Feagin &#39;008 invention has a support  11  which is slightly analogous to the shaft  05  of the current invention. However, as detailed in the analysis of Bernet &#39;529, the current invention shaft  05  of any such toilet plunging device must be considerably smaller in diameter than the diameter of the mouth of the toilet trap. Without the small diameter shaft  05 , the ability to perform the plunging function from an angle is defeated. In contrast, the Feagin &#39;008 invention support  11  is designed for maximum diameter to force the oily cotton wad  12  fibers into contact with the bore.  
         [0063]     (7) The current invention has a scrubber  04  which covers the tip  06  because the lower end of the implement is part of the scrubbing mechanism. In contrast, the Feagin &#39;008 implement has an end with an exposed nail head, which is incidental in that the exposed nail head does not make contact with the surface being cleaned.  
         [0064]     Prior Art Citation #5 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 1,660,318 (1926/1928) J. I. Anderson (Combination Bowl and Rim Brush) (Anderson &#39;318).  
         [0065]     The Anderson &#39;318 “Combination Bowl and Rim Brush” is the prior art behind the modern plastic cylindrical toilet cleaning brush. However, the Anderson &#39;318 invention does not contain a diaphragm, nor any means to unclog a toilet trap. The Anderson &#39;318 invention teaches toilet surface cleaning only, both bowl cleaning and rim cleaning.  
         [0066]     In contrast, the current invention contains a diaphragm  03  and is specifically designed to unclog a toilet trap, in addition to performing toilet surface cleaning.  
         [0067]     The Anderson &#39;318 supporting handle  15  has a reduced diameter or shoulder  19  where the supporting handle  15  contains the collar  16  of bristles, as mentioned in each of the two Anderson &#39;318 claims (from Anderson &#39;318 page 1 line 68 and line 78). The shoulder  19  provides space for wire-tying or otherwise arranging the bristles. In contrast, the current invention does not require a shoulder on the handle  01 , nor on the shaft  05 .  
         [0068]     Prior Art Citation #6 of 8:U.S. Pat. No. 2,732,574 (1949/1956) F. A. Gesell Et Al (Combined Brush and Mop) (Gesell &#39;574).  
         [0069]     The Gesell &#39;574 “Combined Brush and Mop” is taught in three versions as shown in FIGS.  1  thru  5 . The Gesell &#39;574 is designed for the mopping of surfaces; the brushing of surfaces; the scrubbing of surfaces; and the swabbing of surfaces, including toilet surfaces. There is no mention in the text of Gesell &#39;574 of an unclogging capability. There are no structures mentioned in Gesell &#39;574 for an unclogging function, nor are any such structures visible in the figures. All versions of Gesell &#39;574 are described and illustrated as using the same material to create the cleaning element (sponge blocks  20 , 34 , 44 ), with some variations in the shape of the sponge blocks, and some variations in the style of the handle  14 , 36 , 40 , and one with a brush ring  38 , the other two without a brush ring  38 . As such, the following paragraphs will treat all Gesell &#39;574 versions together, as the focus will be on the “blocks of porous, liquid-absorbing material”, the cleaning element.(sponge blocks  20 , 34 , 44 ), utilized for all variations of Gesell &#39;574. Natural sponge and sponge rubber are mentioned as alternatives to the synthetic sponge in Gesell &#39;574. The choice of sponge type has no impact upon the commentary below. Number  20  will be used to identify sponge blocks  20 , 34 , and  44  generally. Number  14  will be used to identify handles  14 , 36 , and  40  generally.  
         [0070]     The Gesell &#39;574 sponge blocks  20  have certain properties that make them useful for mopping, scrubbing, and swabbing, but clearly differentiate Gesell &#39;574 from the current invention. The properties that make the sponge blocks  20  suitable for the Gesell &#39;574 mop are the very properties that make the sponge blocks  20  unsuitable for toilet trap unclogging. The following are ten physical differences between Gesell &#39;574 and the current invention, focussing on the sponge blocks  20 , the cleaning element.  
         [0071]     1) Fluid-holding: the Gesell &#39;574 cleaning element is designed to absorb and hold fluid. There is no provision for de-watering the implement taught by Gesell &#39;574. In contrast, the current invention contains bristles and a diaphragm, neither of which holds fluid; a few taps of the handle  01 , with the current invention, against the rim of the toilet bowl, and the current invention is de-watered and ready to store.  
         [0072]     2) Shape and volume: the Gesell &#39;574 cleaning elements are roughly cylindrical, or roughly spherical, or roughly semi-spherical, in the three variations. In contrast, the diaphragm in the current invention is flat and merely 0.04 inches in thickness.  
         [0073]     3) Permeability: Gesell &#39;574 cleaning element is designed to be porous. In contrast, the diaphragm in the current invention is designed for zero porosity.  
         [0074]     4) Leaking at edges: To the extent that the open cells of the Gesell &#39;574 cleaning element traverse the edge of the cleaning element, potential leakage pathways are present at the edge. Such leakage pathways could result in the leaking and squirting of non-pristine water if Gesell &#39;574 was used in a plunging manner. In contrast, the current invention features a diaphragm whose edge is fair.  
         [0075]     5) Resiliency speed: A sponge, like the sponge “cleaning element” in Gesell &#39;574, returns to it&#39;s neutral compression size slowly after pressure is released, often taking multiple seconds to return to it&#39;s neutral compression size. This slow recovery makes sponge a poor choice for a seal material in most applications, including this one. In contrast, the current invention features a diaphragm, which seals instantly.  
         [0076]     6) Particle holding: A sponge has the ability to hold particles in it&#39;s open cells until the particles are rinsed out. Using a sponge or other similar porous material in a fouled toilet bowl would force particles into the porous structure of the sponge. In this clogged-toilet application, the particles are smelly organic particles. This would require multiple re-watering and hand-squeezing (or machine-squeezing) cycles to obtain adequate particle removal. Bleaching, followed by rinsing would be highly recommended. In contrast, the current invention utilizes coarse bristles and a smooth diaphragm, which rinse clean in a few seconds.  
         [0077]     7) Layering (Part 1 of 2): Gesell &#39;574 teaches a multi-layer, or foliate, configuration of cleaning element sponge blocks  20 , with three to eight layers. In contrast, the current invention teaches a single layer diaphragm  03  design.  
         [0078]     8) Layering (Part 2 of 2): All variations of Gesell &#39;574 teach a multi-layer arrangement of sponge blocks  20 ; three to eight layers. If Gesell &#39;574 were used in a plunging mode in a fouled toilet bowl, the flexible blocks of sponge would trap and hold fecal particles between the layers of sponge. Restoring the Gesell &#39;574 to a generally clean status, suitable for storing, would require taking the implement apart and cleaning each sponge block with multiple re-watering and hand-squeezing (or machine-squeezing) cycles. Bleaching, followed by rinsing would be highly recommended. Failure to clean the Gesell &#39;574 in such a detailed manner would result in an extremely unsanitary condition. Therefore, such an unsatisfactory design with such a high maintenance burden, should be considered useless for toilet unclogging. In contrast, the current invention uses coarse bristles and a smooth diaphragm, which rinse clean in a few seconds. The purpose of this paragraph was not to denigrate Gesell. &#39;574 in a harsh manner, but merely to illustrate the sanitary problems associated with multi-layer sponges in fecal water.  
         [0079]     9) Abrasion resistance: A sponge, like the sponges taught in Gesell &#39;574, have a low resistance to abrasion; they will abrade and decrease in size with use. In contrast, the current invention uses a diaphragm, which can be made with rubber which is both harder and denser than sponge, which greatly increases it&#39;s resistance to abrasion.  
         [0080]     10) Strength: The three to eight sponge layers of Gesell &#39;574 are fastened to the handle  14  with one fastener which passes through all layers of sponge, thereby squeezing all sponge layers together and joining them to the handle  14 . If Gesell &#39;574 were used in a plunging mode, the single fastener  13 , 32 , 42  could pull-thru or tear-thru one or more sponge blocks  20 , especially on the ‘pull’ of the stroke, leaving one or more sponges stuck in the toilet trap or adrift in the toilet bowl. In contrast, the current invention features a single layer diaphragm  03  which is very tear resistant and is not in danger of breaking free of the implement.  
         [0081]     Prior Art Citation #7 of 8: U.S. Pat. No. 5,878,459 (1997/1999) McParland (Toilet Brush) (McParland &#39;459).  
         [0082]     The McParland &#39;459 “Toilet Brush” is taught in three slightly differing versions, as shown in FIGS.  1  thru  5 . The McParland &#39;459 is designed for cleaning toilet bowls, especially under the rim of toilet bowls. There is no mention in the text of McParland &#39;459 of a trap unclogging capability. There are no structures mentioned in McParland &#39;459 for a trap unclogging function, nor are any such structures visible. The main difference between the different McParland &#39;459 variations is in the “deflection limiter”  40 , 140 , 141 , and the style of the scrubbing portion  14 , 114 , 214 . As such, the following paragraphs will treat all McParland &#39;459 versions together.  
         [0083]     The McParland &#39;459 “Toilet Brush” has several physical components not found in the current invention. Also, the current invention has a component not found in McParland &#39;459. Here are four physical differences between McParland &#39;459 and the current invention.  
         [0084]     (1) The McParland &#39;459 “Toilet Brush” features a “deflector limiter”  40 , 140 , 141 , to control the flexion between the handle portion  12 , 112 , 212 , and the scrubbing portion  14 , 114 , 214 , in all versions. In contrast, the current invention does not have a “deflection limiter”.  
         [0085]     (2) The McParland &#39;459 “Toilet Brush” has a sharply angled head in all versions. In contrast, the current invention has a head  02  which is not sharply angled.  
         [0086]     (3) The McParland &#39;459 features an asymmetric design in all versions. In contrast, the current invention is symmetric.  
         [0087]     (4) The McParland &#39;459 has no diaphragm. In contrast, the current invention has a diaphragm  03 .  
         [0088]     Prior Art Citation #8 of 8: UK Pat. # 2,034,431 (1978/1980) Albert Edward Du Triou (Pipe Cleaner) (GB &#39;431).  
         [0089]     The GB &#39;431 “Pipe Cleaner” is a fluid-propelled pipe wall cleaner, suitable for cleaning the interior wall surface of long pipe runs. GB &#39;431 is not suitable for toilet surface cleaning, nor for toilet trap unclogging, but it is suited for cleaning miles of underground piping where access points are separated by long distances. Before using the GB &#39;431 within a pipe run, the cable  24  used to pull GB &#39;431 would have to be installed within the pipe run. If the pipe is clogged, the cable  24  installation would not be possible. Clearly, the GB &#39;431 “Pipe Cleaner” is for preventative maintenance: reducing the buildup of crud on the inside wall surface of long pipe runs.  
         [0090]     The GB &#39;431 “Pipe Cleaner” has physical components not found in the current invention. Also, the current invention has physical components not found in GB &#39;431. Here are some physical differences between GB &#39;431 and the current invention.  
         [0091]     (1) The GB &#39;431 is moved through pipe runs using cables  24 , with swivels  22  at one or both ends of the device to prevent cable  24  twisting. A twisted cable  24  can kink and knot itself into a tangled mess, which could be catastrophic in an underground pipe run. GB &#39; 431  is free to rotate on it&#39;s own, thereby preventing cable  24  twisting. In contrast, the current invention contains no swivels, nor cables, but incorporates a handle  01  which gives the operator total control over the rotation of the implement.  
         [0092]     (2) The GB &#39;431 has a resilient disk  16  with stiffening plates  18 , thereby making the center of the disk  16  rigid. In contrast, the current invention has a diaphragm  03  with no stiffening plates on either side.  
         [0093]     (3) The GB &#39;431 resilient disk  16  is typically slotted  20 , using various patterns to create different hydraulic effects in the pipe run. In contrast, the diaphragm  03  in the current invention is not slotted.  
         [0094]     (4) The GB &#39;431 resilient disk  16  keeps the brush  10  properly positioned in the pipe. In contrast, in the current invention, the scrubber  04  helps keep the diaphragm  03  positioned in the mouth of the trap.  
         [0095]     (5) The GB &#39;431 has a “means for holding the brush  10  perpendicular to the axis of a pipe” (GB &#39;431 claim #1). In contrast, the current invention is designed to allow the diaphragm  03  to operate with a 45 degree differential to the axis of the mouth of the trap.  
       BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0096]     At first glance, the current invention looks like an ordinary cylindrical toilet cleaning brush. Closer inspection reveals a new type of toilet plunger partially hidden within the implement. Both aspects of the invention, the toilet cleaning components, and the toilet plunging components, are fully functional and do not interfere with each other. In fact, the current invention functions better in both the brushing mode AND the plunging mode, compared to the performance of earlier separate implements. The performance of the current invention the toilet trap unclogging mode is particularly noteworthy. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING  
       [0097]      FIG. 1  is a side view of the current invention. The pictured embodiment is cylindrically symmetric, so only one side view is needed. 
     
    
     REFERENCE NUMERALS USED IN FIG.  1   
       [0098]      01  handle  
         [0099]      02  head  
         [0100]      03  diaphragm  
         [0101]      04  scrubber  
         [0102]      05  shaft  
         [0103]      06  tip  
         [0104]      07  top  
         [0105]      FIG. 2  is a view of a toilet bowl with the current invention in position for toilet-trap-unclogging.  
       REFERENCE NUMERALS USED IN FIG.  2   
       [0106]      01  handle  
         [0107]      20  toilet bowl  
         [0108]      21  water level  
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0109]     The current invention is shown in  FIG. 1 . Handle  01  connects to head  02 . Head  02  includes diaphragm  03  and scrubber  04  and shaft  05 . The end of shaft  05  is identified as tip  06 . The end of handle  01  opposite head  02  is top  07 .  
         [0110]     The current invention performs two functions: (1) it operates as a conventional cylindrical toilet cleaning brush for toilet-surface-cleaning, and (2) it operates as a toilet plunger for toilet-trap-unclogging.  
         [0111]     To make the current invention: first build or obtain an ordinary cylindrical toilet cleaning brush. Those skilled in the art will readily understand how to make a standard toilet cleaning brush; that detail will be skipped here. Refer to  FIG. 1  for the style of brush referred to herein. Then, make diaphragm  03 : cut a circle of  40  mil PVC sheet to the diameter of scrubber  04 ; cut a round hole in the center of the PVC circle to match the diameter of shaft  05 . Finally, install the PVC circle on shaft  05 , near tip  06 , leaving a ring of bristles below diaphragm  03  to prevent diaphragm  03  from falling off tip  06 . The completed toilet cleaning brush with integral toilet plunger is now ready for deployment.  
         [0112]     To produce the current invention in large quantities, the installation of diaphragm  03  should be integrated into the overall production process.  
         [0113]     The choice of materials for the current invention is not limited to the materials described above. Each component will be listed below with some additional material selections.  
         [0114]     Handle  01  and shaft  05  could be built in: polymer, rubber, plastic, wood, bamboo, fiber, metal, fiber-reinforced plastic, glass, ceramic, or some combination of materials, or any other suitable material(s).  
         [0115]     Diaphragm  03  could be built in: PVC, neoprene, leather, coated paper, fabric, latex rubber, polymer, rubber, plastic, fiber, spunbonded olefin, cardboard, or some combination of materials, or any other suitable material(s).  
         [0116]     Another embodiment of diaphragm  03  could be a substantially dome-shaped piece of material which is: (1) placed over the conical end of head  02 , (2) used to unclog a toilet trap, and (3) dissolved in the toilet bowl; or discarded in a trash can; or stored for reuse. A flat sheet of material could be placed over the conical end of scrubber  04  and used in a similar manner as the dome-shaped piece of material just disclosed.  
         [0117]     Another embodiment of diaphragm  03  could be a substantially disk-shaped piece of material which is: (1) impaled on tip  06 , (2) used to unclog a toilet trap, and (3) dissolved in the toilet bowl; or detached from tip  06  and dissolved in the toilet bowl; or detached from tip  06  and discarded in a trash can; or detached from tip  06  and stored for reuse.  
         [0118]     Scrubber  04  could be: bristles, nubs, sponge, mesh, or pad. Pad can be composed of singular materials or combinations of materials: mesh enclosed sponge, woven fiber, woven solid strands of plastic, paper fiber, non woven fiber, cloth, yarn, metallic wool, non-metallic wool, metallic netting, non-metallic netting. Nubs can be composed of singular materials or combinations of materials: finger-like projections, stalk-like projections, vane-like projections, projections with tips of sponge or pad, or some combination of materials. Scrubber  04  could be a layer of any materials) mounted on a backing, or a disposable material, or a detachable material, or any other suitable material(s).  
         [0119]     Handle  01  could be substantially: solid or tubular, one piece or multiple pieces, straight or curved, rigid or flexible.  
         [0120]     Shaft  05  could be substantially: solid or tubular, one piece or multiple pieces, straight or curved, rigid or flexible.  
         [0121]     Handle  01  and shaft  05  could be substantially: in alignment with each other or offset, detachable from each other or not detachable.  
         [0122]     Handle  01  may be: smooth, or textured for better hand gripping, or textured for improved gripping by both hands.  
         [0123]     Handle  01  and shaft  05  could be one monolithic piece or multiple pieces, joined detachably, or joined rigidly, with or without flexion between them.  
         [0124]     Head  02  may be fully covered by scrubber  04  or partially covered by scrubber  04 . More than one type of material may be used to build scrubber  04 . Alternatively, head  02  may omit scrubber  04  entirely or contain a removable, or partially removable, or disposable, or dissolvable, or releasable scrubber  04 .  
         [0125]     Top  07  may be square, rounded, bulbous, tee-shaped, mushroom-shaped, or otherwise shaped for improved gripping, pulling, and pushing. Top  07  may be textured for improved gripping. Top  07  may be molded, shaped, engraved, labeled, textured, illuminated, or printed to readily make the bathroom user aware that this new type of bathroom implement is at hand.  
         [0126]     Diaphragm  03  may be flat, curved, rippled, cone-shaped, or some other shape. Head  02  may contain more than one diaphragm  03 , and one or more shapes of diaphragm  03  may be used. Diaphragm  03  may be mounted perpendicular to the long axis of shaft  05  or at any other angle. Diaphragm  03  may be permanent, detachable, dissolvable, or disposable. Diaphragm  03  may contain soap, detergent, fragrance, disinfectant, colorant, bleach, or foaming agent.  
         [0127]     The current invention can be cylindrically symmetric or of a cylindrically non-symmetric cross-section.  
         [0128]     The current invention can be shorter than the typical fifteen inch long toilet cleaning brush.  
         [0129]     The current invention can be longer than the typical fifteen inch long toilet cleaning brush.  
         [0130]     To use the current invention for toilet-trap-unclogging: Many toilet trap clogs result in a low water level, unless a second flush was attempted. You may have to release some water from the toilet tank into the toilet bowl if the water level is too low in the toilet bowl. If you have the opposite condition, the up-to-the-brim-of-the-rim condition, you may want to wait a few moments while the water level in the toilet bowl recedes somewhat. However, in nearly all cases, the water level in the toilet bowl is acceptable and you simply proceed using the implement.  
         [0131]     While standing in front of the toilet, grasp the current invention by handle  01  at top  07  and place head  02  just into the mouth of the toilet trap, pushing slightly until resistance is felt. The long axis of the device should be roughly halfway between vertical and horizontal, or roughly 45 degrees to the plane of the bathroom floor. Then push one more time to set diaphragm  03  roughly one inch past the lip of the mouth of the trap. Roughly one half of head  02  will be visible and diaphragm  03  will be fully inside the mouth of the toilet trap. Finally, actuate the invention using multiple quick in-and-out motions while maintaining the roughly 45 degree angle of inclination of the implement. Five in-and-out cycles in five seconds will dislodge the clog nearly every time. Flush to confirm alleviation of the toilet trap cloggage as your withdraw the implement from the mouth of the toilet trap. Try not to snag any suspended toilet paper as you withdraw the implement from the toilet bowl; if paper is snagged, it can be removed from the head  02  by rotating the implement in the toilet bowl of water.  
         [0132]     If you need to repeat the toilet-trap-unclogging procedure, you may need to release some water from the toilet tank to refill the bottom of the toilet bowl. To do so, depress the flush lever slightly for a few seconds to refill the bottom of the toilet bowl. (During actuation of the current invention in the toilet-trap-unclogging mode, handle  01  will move roughly one and one half inches with each cycle; or in other words: midpoint plus and minus three fourths of an inch.) Repeat the toilet-trap-unclogging procedure. Remove the implement from the mouth of the toilet trap with one pulling motion. Flush to confirm alleviation of the toilet trap cloggage and to refill the toilet bowl with water. Rinse head  02  in the toilet bowl of water as the toilet bowl fills, tap the middle of handle  01  on the edge of the toilet bowl rim a few times to de-water the implement, then store. It the toilet water was badly fouled, the implement can be rotated in the toilet bowl of water to dislodge any particles from the implement. A few drops of toilet bowl cleaner-added-to-the toilet bowl water will aid this process and help clean the toilet bowl. Total elapsed time is typically five to fifteen seconds for the entire procedure.  
         [0133]     Typically, there is no splashing and no gurgling noise during the toilet-trap-unclogging procedure as the plunging force is applied directly to the toilet trap with no water forced into the siphon hole. The siphon hole is the hole which is typically three inches from the mouth of the toilet trap, near the bottom of the toilet bowl, where water from the toilet tank can be seen gushing toward the toilet trap during the flush. The siphon hole is typically three quarters of an inch in diameter. Your toilets may vary. Toilets which conform to the 1994 U.S.A. Federal 1.6 gallons per flush standard are most in need of the current invention.  
         [0134]     Widespread deployment of the current invention will spur wider adoption of water-saving toilets, which will conserve vast amounts of potable water.