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 .
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kira et al. (US Patent 3,786,522) in view of Adams (US Patent 4,747,167).
Regarding claim 1, An ergonomic toilet seat (20), wherein the seat comprises a top circumferential seating surface having an inner edge, an outer edge, a front, and a back, wherein the seat is substantially symmetrical about a bisecting center line from front to back (as seen in figures 1 and 14 the seat 20 has two top circumferential seating surfaces at 24 and 26 on both sides of the centerline in figure 1; or alternately surfaces 60 and 62 in figure 6), a back top seating surface comprises a steep upward curve from front to back (adjacent 22 in figure 1 or at 64 in figure 6), and wherein the inner edge comprises a curved thigh support surface (68) positioned towards the seat front (near 60), the curved thigh support surface extending inward towards the bisecting centerline (as shown in Fig. 1, 6, 11), wherein an outer edge low point (when compared to the outer edge high point 85) is positioned in a front one third of the toilet seat in a same area as the thigh support surface (see annotated figure below). Wherein the seat comprises one or more areas configured to receive and couple to stabilization pads (70). Kira fails to show L-shaped lateral stabilization pad. Adams teaches a seat comprises one or more areas (56) configured to receive and couple to L-shaped lateral stabilization pads (42’), wherein each L-shaped lateral stabilization pad comprises a horizontal portion (42’) that couples to the seat (through post 52) and a vertical down leg (44’) extending downward from the horizontal portion, the vertical down leg configured to rest against an interior vertical surface of a toilet bowl rim (16; Fig.7) to thereby limit lateral movement of the seat by contact between the vertical down leg and the interior vertical surface, and wherein the L-shaped lateral stabilization pads are configured to snap-fit (through pegs 52) to the seat (column 3 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include L-shaped stabilizing pads in order to prevent the toilet seat from moving. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
PNG
media_image1.png
343
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 12, Kira discloses: an ergonomic toilet seat (20), wherein the seat comprises a top circumferential seating surface having an inner edge, an outer edge, a front, and a back, wherein the seat is substantially symmetrical about a bisecting center line from front to back (as seen in figures 1 and 14 the seat 20 has two top circumferential seating surface at 24 and 26 on both sides of the centerline in figure 1; or alternately surfaces 60 and 62 in figure 6), the inner edge comprises a downward curve from the seat front towards the seat back (the inner edge of the toilet seat has a downward curve from the front towards the back (as shown in Figs. 1, 5, 6 and 8-12C; col 3, In 3 to col 4, In 34), the outer edge comprises a downward curve followed by a lesser upward curve from the back to the front (the outer edge, as shown in Fig. 11, has a downward curve shown proximate the arrow 20 and a lesser upward curve at the point 112 -Fig.1-11A; col 3, In 3 to col 4, In 34), and a back top seating surface comprises a steep upward curve from front to back (the toilet seat 20 is substantially symmetrical and the rear region 64 has an upward curve from the front 67 to the upper edge 85 has a steep upward curve -Fig.1-11A; col 3, In 3 to col 4, In 34); wherein the inner edge comprises a curved thigh support surface positioned towards the seat front, the curved thigh support surface extending inward towards the bisecting centerline (as shown in Fig. 1, 6, 11), wherein an outer edge low point (when compared to the outer edge high point 85) is positioned in a front one third of the toilet seat in a same area as the thigh support surface (see annotated figure below). Wherein the seat comprises one or more areas configured to receive and couple lateral stabilization pads (70).
Kira fails to show L-shaped lateral stabilization pad. Adams teaches a seat (24’) comprises one or more areas (54) configured to receive and couple to L-shaped lateral stabilization pads (48), wherein each L-shaped lateral stabilization pad comprises a horizontal portion (42’’) that couples to the seat and a vertical down leg (44’) extending downward from the horizontal portion, the vertical down leg configured to rest against an interior vertical surface of a toilet bowl rim (16; Fig.5) to thereby limit lateral movement of the seat by contact between the vertical down leg and the interior vertical surface, and wherein the L-shaped lateral stabilization pads are configured to snap-fit (through pegs 52) to the seat (column 3 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include L-shaped stabilizing pads in order to prevent the toilet seat from moving. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
PNG
media_image1.png
343
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kira discloses the ergonomic toilet seat according to claim 1, wherein a slope along the bisecting center line from a back inner edge center point to a highest back point is from about 25 degrees to about 55 degrees (with the various embodiments of back top seating surfaces show in figures 8A, 9, 10 and 11A disclosed on column 4, lines 12-28 as including the claimed angle range of 25 to 55 degrees).
Regarding claim 3, Kira discloses the edge slope decreasing as claimed on col. 4, lines 21-24.
As per claim 5, Kira teaches the toilet seat according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the inner edge comprises a downward curve from the seat front to the seat back (the inner edge of the toilet seat has a downward curve from the front towards the back (Figs. 1, 5, 6 and 8-12C; col 3, In 3 to col 4, In 34).
As per claim 6, Kira teaches the toilet seat according to claim 5, and further teaches wherein the inner edge downward curve results in a back inner edge portion being positioned below a toilet bowl top edge upon installation on a toilet (the inner edge of the toilet seat has a downward curve from the front towards the back and extends below a toilet bowl edge (see col 3, In 49-55 -Fig.1-11A; col 3, In 3 to col 4, In 34).
As per claim 8, Kira teaches the toilet seat according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the outer edge comprises a downward curve followed by a lesser upward curve from the back to the front (the outer edge, as shown in Fig. 11, has a downward curve shown proximate the arrow 20 and a lesser upward curve at the point 112 (Fig.1-11A; col3, In 3 to col 4, In 34).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kira et al.3,786,522 in view of Adams US Patent 4,747,167. Kira teaches the toilet seat according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein a slope along the bisecting center line from a front inner edge center point to a front outer edge center point is from about 5 degrees to about 21 degrees. However, Kira shows the inner edge of the toilet seat has a downward curve from the front towards the back (Figs. 1, 5, 6 and 8-12C; and in particular figure 8 shows the front inner edge slope to be small. Nevertheless, Kira does not disclose any specific angle for the small slope. Similarly, as per claim 7, figure 8 shows a drop in height from a front inner edge center point to a back inner edge center point, but does not disclose any specific value for the drop. Additionally, as per claim 9, figure 8 shows there is a drop in height from a back outer edge high point to an outer edge low point but does not disclose any specific value for the drop. As per claim 10, Kira does not disclose there is a rise in height from an outer edge low point to a front outer edge center point. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use routine experimentation, design choices, and changes to size and shape as stated in MPEP 2144.04 (1), (IVA) and (IVB). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the toilet seat to slope along the bisecting center line from a front inner edge center point to a front outer edge center point is from about 5 degrees to about 21 degrees. as called for in claim 4, and to make drop in height from a front inner edge center point to a back inner edge center point of from about 5 mm to about 30 mm. as called for in claim 7, and to make drop in height from a back outer edge high point to an outer edge low point of from about 12 mm to about 40 mm. as called for in claim 9, and to provide a rise in height from an outer edge low point to a front outer edge center point of from about 1 mm to about 5 mm. as called for in claim 10 in order to provide specific dimensions and angles for manufacturing the disclosed seat which will increase the ability of the seat to comfortably fit the back side of a user.
Claim(s) 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kira et al. 3,786,522 in view of Adams US Patent 4,747,167 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Mathews 4,457,029.
Regarding claims 17 and 19; Kira discloses: An ergonomic toilet seat (20) including a generic cover on column 5, lines 34-37: substantially as claimed but does not disclose if the contours of the cover correspond to the seat. However, Matthews teaches another toilet seat 202 having a cover 210 contoured to mate with the contours of the seat for the purpose of effectively closing the toilet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cover of Kira with contours that match the seat as, for example, taught by Matthews in order to effectively close the toilet.
Regarding claims 18 and 20; Kira shows the toilet set according to claims 1 and 12.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Kira shows the toilet seat according to claims 1 and 12, but fails to show wherein the ergonomic toilet seat has a closed front configuration. Matthews ergonomic toilet seat has a closed front configuration (Fig. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an ergonomic toilet seat has a closed front configuration as taught by Matthews in order to add more structural integrity to the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the new limitation added to claims 1 and 12 are not shown by the cited prior art. The examiner disagrees. Adams teaches the new limitations as recited in the action above.
Applicant argues that there is not motivation to combine Adam’s stabilization pads with the Kira’s seat. The examiner disagrees. Kira shows stabilization pads located on the bottom of the toilet seat and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the pads of Kira to include L-shaped pads as shown by Adams.
Applicant argues that Adams fails to show a vertical leg that is configured to rest against an interior surface of the toilet bowl rim. The examiner disagrees. Adams teaches a leg that rests against an interior surface of the toilet bowl rim.
Applicant argues that Adams does not show a snap fit. The examiner disagrees. Adams shows a stabilization pad that includes a post (52) the post “snap fits” into the hole created in the toilet seat (column 3 lines 55-60).
Further the applicant defines the term “snap fit” as being an elastic deformation of a resilient member that flexes and latches into a place. This definition was not presented in the originally filed specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm.
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 at 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.
/LAUREN A CRANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights