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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 12-20 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “wherein the seat configuration provides a sample size of people seated thereon an average contact area of at least 115 square inches and an average pressure of 2.0 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 0 psi, an average contact area of no more than 4.5 square inches and an average pressure of 7.4 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 5 psi, and an average contact area of no more than 2.5 square inches and an average pressure of 8.6 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 7 psi.” The claim appears to define what the toilet seat does and not what it is, this renders the claims indefinite. 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). See MEPE 2173.05.
The term “about” in claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The originally filed specification defines the word “about” as +20% or more and + 10% or more. It is unclear what percentage the word “about” encompasses. In order to overcome this rejection, the phrase “or more” should be removed from the specification.
Claims 13 and 14 recites the limitation “wherein the sample size of people comprises 5 to 10 adults having an average height of 59 inches to 73 inches and an average weight of 164 pounds to 204 pounds”. The claim appears to be defining a method of testing the toilet seat and not the actual structure of the toilet seat, this render the claims indefinite. 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). See MEPE 2173.05.
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, 12-16 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.
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). The seat is capable of providing a sample size of people seated thereon an average contact area of at least 115 square inches and an average pressure of 2.0 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 0 psi, an average contact area of no more than 4.5 square inches and an average pressure of 7.4 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 5 psi, and an average contact area of no more than 2.5 square inches and an average pressure of 8.6 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 7 psi. 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). 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). The seat is capable of providing a sample size of people seated thereon an average contact area of at least 115 square inches and an average pressure of 2.0 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 0 psi, an average contact area of no more than 4.5 square inches and an average pressure of 7.4 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 5 psi, and an average contact area of no more than 2.5 square inches and an average pressure of 8.6 psi when measured at a pressure threshold of 7 psi. 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). 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 13, 14, Kira shows the toilet seat according to claim 1 or 12, and further shows a toilet seat that is capable of having a sample size of people comprises 5 to 10 adults having an average height of 59 inches to 73 inches and an average weight of 164 pounds to 204 pounds. 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). See MPEP 2173.05.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kira fails to show a set of lateral stabilization pads. Adams teaches a seat having wherein the L-shaped lateral stabilization pads are configured to snap-fit to the seat (through post 52; column 3 lines 45-60). 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 configured to snap-fit to the seat in order to prevent the toilet seat from moving.
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 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) 17-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitations recited in claims 1 and 12 define over the prior art of record. The examiner disagrees. The new limitations are directed toward the sample size of people seated on the toilet seat and fail to further define the toilet seat structure. When a claim limitation employs functional language, the examiner’s determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite will be highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art). Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it does rather than what it is. 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). See MPEP 2173.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caldwell (US Patent 5,212,840) is directed toward a stabilized toilet seat.
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