DETAILED ACTION
Notices
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s submission of materials in patent application 18/372,075 is acknowledged. As noted throughout the below action, there are significant formal and statutory deficiencies in the claims and disclosure. The Examiner has performed a search and examination insofar as is possible in the interest of compact prosecution. Applicant is required to correct the specification (37 CFR 1.71, see MPEP 608.01 et seq.) and drawings (37 CFR 1.81, see MPEP 608.02 et seq.). Applicant is encouraged to redraft or submit new claims which comply with the formal (See MPEP 608.01(i), (j), (m), (n)) and statutory requirements (§101, 112, 102, 103). Applicant is reminded that any corrective amendments must be free from new matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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:
heavy duty zipper adjoining the compartment with the seat fabric, cl. 1
sliding action, cl. 2
hand rest pivotally connected to the front joint, cl. 4
the support section of the hand rest being biased against the second frame limb, cl. 5.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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: 101. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
Applicant’s use of the transitional phrase “made up” in claim 1 is acknowledged and will be interpreted as meaning “comprising.” See MPEP 2111.03(I).
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 - 12 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The below list is representative of some of the issues identified by the Examiner. It is not exhaustive. Applicant’s cooperation in correcting any issues not specifically outlined below is requested. Given the deficiencies, Applicant is also cautioned that the lack of a prior art rejection is not to be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter.
There are numerous issues with antecedent basis throughout all of the claims. Applicant should first introduce a claim element with –a-- or --an--. Subsequent recitations of the claim element are then preceded with –the-- or –said--. For Example, “a widget” …. “the widget.” Because the issues with antecedent basis are so numerous, all instances have not been identified. However, correction is required.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name (i.e. “Honey Bucket”) cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. See MPEP 2173.05(u).
In lines 2-4, it is not clear if the pair of back tubular legs and the front pair of tubular cross legs are legs in addition to the “two tubular crossed legs” of “each side of the frame”, or if applicant is further defining the “two tubular crossed legs.”
In line 4, it Is not clear which of the leg structures are “coupled with each other.”
There are numerous issues with antecedent basis throughout the claim. For example, in lines 5 – 10, “the lower front end cross legs”, “the lower rear end cross legs”, “the upper rear end cross legs”, and “the upper front end cross legs”, “the lower ends” and “the first and second lower back connector pads” all lack antecedent basis.
In lines 9-10, it is unclear if the first and second lower back connector pads are in addition to the back connector pads that are previously recited.
The term “nearly” in line 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly” 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.
In lines 20 and 22, applicant recites “connector pads” and it is unclear if these are the same connector pads as previously set forth or different ones.
In line 23, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the main face” and in line 24, “the main faces” is unclear as to whether or not applicant is reciting additional main faces, or if the main face is one of a plurality of main faces. It is not clear how many faces applicant is attempting to claim.
The term “just wide enough” in line 26-27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “just wide enough” 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.
In line 29, it is not clear how “fabricated” further informs the scope of “flexible material.” All material is fabricated in some way or another. Each word in a claim is presumed to have meaning. Since applicant later recited “the flexible seat fabric”, it will be assumed that applicant intends to recite that the seat is made from a flexible fabric, however clarification by amendment is required.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the four upper pads” in line 30. It is unclear how many connector pads and their locations applicant is attempting to claim.
The term “heavy duty” in line 36 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy duty” 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 pressure point of the buttocks is not definite because it depends on who is using the chair. Different users will have different weights and body dimensions and the ‘pressure point’ will necessarily change based on that.
In line 38, “a said zipper” is not comprehensible. Is it a new zipper or the previously recited one? Additionally, the claim does not appear to be accurate. There is no disclosure that the zipper attaches the compartment to the seat, and even if there were was sufficient disclosure, it is not clear how the same zipper which attaches the flap to the seat could also attach the compartment to the seat, as opening the flap would release the compartment, rendering the toilet part of the chair non-operational.
In claim 2:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sliding action” i 2 appears to be used by the claim to mean “rotate” or possibly “pivot” while the accepted meaning is “a lever which slides back and forth to eject an empty case and reload” (as in a shotgun or rifle) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
It is unclear what “the joint of the back frame” refers to.
Regarding claim 3, the function language “can slide using the connector pad by entering each connector hole” cannot be understood. It is not clear if applicant is trying to recite how the hand rest is attached to the connector pads, or how the parts interact during folding and unfolding.
Regarding claim 4:
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the guiding portion” and “the guiding holder”.
The claim is in multiple sentences which renders it indefinite. It is not clear where the claim begins and ends.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear if the two separate side frames in line 2 are the same frames as set forth in line 2-3 of parent claim 1
Regarding claim 7:
In line 2, it is not clear if the heavy duty zipper is the same zipper as set forth in claim 1 or a different zipper. “heavy duty” also suffers from the same issues as set forth in section p. above.
The claim is in multiple sentences which renders it indefinite. It is not clear where the claim begins and ends.
It is noted that claim 8 – 11 , which depend from claim 7, inherit all of the above defects. Additionally, these claims are also in multiple sentences which render the metes and bounds indefinite.
Claim 12 is in multiple sentences, so it is not clear where the claim ends and begins. It is additionally unclear if the claim is intended to be a separate, independent claim or if it is meant to be dependent from claim 1 or some other claim.
The remaining claims are indefinite due to dependency. In view of the above defects, the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 - 5 and 7 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieger et al. (US 7,857,380 hereinafter Grieger) in view of Lee (US 5,984,406) and Grudzinski (US 2015/0082526).
Regarding claim 1, Grieger discloses a toilet chair comprising: a frame (105) having front and back crossed legs, and left and right side crossed legs, which are all pivotally connected to form an X shape (col 3, ln. 8-13)(see annotated figure below), and a plurality of front and back lower connector pads to which lower ends of the legs are pivotally attached to (see transition between fig. 5 and fig. 7); the front and back lower pads being configured to be placed on the ground for stability; upper ends of the front legs are bent (at 214) to create hand rests, with the legs extending continuously from the lower front pads (see fig. 9); and a ‘tensional’ flexible seat arrangement (120, 110) comprising a flexible fabric (col. 3, ln. 15-17) connected to the chair frame (fig. 7), the seat having a flap (seat back, not numbered, but near leader line 210 in fig. 7) protruding upwardly from the back of the seat arrangement, and a pocket (not numbered, see fig. 6) for attaching the flap to the frame over the top ends of the back legs; wherein a flap (120) covers a flexible compartment (180) connected to the flexible seat arrangement (col. 4, ln. 12-38) and hanging centered between the legs of the frame (fig. 6)
Grieger does not show a zipper joining the flap to the seat fabric, instead showing that the flap (120) is attached to the seat (110) using hook and loop fasteners (col. 3, ln. 47-54). Attention is turned to Grudzinski which teaches a similar portable toilet chair (100) having a flap (200) which is secured to an opening (204) above a flexible compartment (206) by a heavy-duty zipper (203). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have used a zipper to connect the flap and the seat, since zippers are a conventional means of removably joining two flexible sheets of material together. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP §2144.06.
Grieger does not show the particulars of the upper connector pads and the pockets and flexible connectors of the seat. Attention is turned to Lee which teaches a similar, and conventional folding chair (1) having a frame (3) made up of four sets of crossed legs (5,7; 9,11; 13,15; 17; 19) defining front, rear, left side, and right side tubular legs that a pivotally coupled to one another (21); there are upper front and rear connector pads (25A, 25B, 23E , 23F) to which upper ends of the crossed legs are attached (fig. 1), there are rear legs (112,113) that are substantially parallel (see fig. 1a) that are connected inside of an aperture (79) formed in an upper surface of the lower back connector pads, and the rear legs pass through the upper back connector pads (see fig. 1a, detail c); the upper front and rear ends of the side legs and back legs are hingedly attached to the upper front and rear connector pads (col. 3, ln. 61-66); and the front legs pass through the upper front connector pad (25a, 25b, fig. 1, 2); the back connector pads and front lower connector pads are all alike (23A-F) and have parallel main faces (63, 61) connected by 4 side faces (65, 67, 69, 71); with a first slot (77) parallel to longitudinal side faces (65, 69); a hole (79) between the main faces; a second slot (75) extending inward form a third side face adjacent the main face towards the first slot, the slots being wide enough to accommodate the frame legs (col. 3, ln. 61 – 66)(see figs. 3 – 4); the upper connectors connect the seat arrangement to the frame legs at four upper ends (fig. 1a); the seat back is connected to the frame with two pockets (123) and there a re a pair of flexible connectors (101) which aid in guiding the back supporting flap on the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the connector pad, seat, and frame arrangement in the device of Griefer, since either still enables a multifunctional, foldable chair. The structures illustrated by Lee are well known and conventional in the seating arts.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Grieger as modified by Lee shows there is a ‘sliding action’ (about 81) in each of the connector pads for the back frame legs below the joint.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Grieger as modified shows all of the instant invention, and further shows that the hand rest is an extended leg, with a first elongated portion and is pivotally coupled to a front joint, and a second bent part forming a ‘guiding portion’, is inclined relative to the front portion, and can slide using the connector pad by entering a connector hole (under the proposed modification with Lee, see slot on 25A in fig. 1), and a guiding holder (109) supports the handrest in an open position (see fig. 1a of Lee), such that when the seat is collapsed, the front and rear frames are moved toward each other and the hand rests are moved towards each other , the guiding portions are moved away from each other (fig. 2) and the guiding holders are moved toward the hand rests (fig. 2), and when unfolded, the frames move away from each other, the hand rests are opened away from each other, and the guide portion of the hand rests are moved toward the guiding holders. See the movement in the transition from open in fig. 1 to collapsed in fig. 2 of Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Grieger as modified shows that the hand rests are biased against the seat and connector to prevent movement relative to the chair frame. See fig. 1 in deployed position.
Regarding claims 7 – 9, Grieger as modified by Grudzinski show all of the instant invention including the heavy-duty zipper. The Examiner takes Official Notice thata ll of the additional claimed details including the left and right carriers, stopping means, and manually operated opener with indents are common in zipper closures. The functional language, including the movement in forward and opposite directs to variously interlock and unlock the zipper teeth is met by the combination, since this language just describes how a conventional zipper works.
Regarding claim 10, Grieger as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the flap unzips to expose the compartment , and under the proposed modification, the zipper is generally U-shaped (see fig. 7 of Grieger, flap is generally U shaped and accordingly, the zipper will also be U-shaped).
Regarding claim 11, Grieger as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent as to the particulars of the compartment. Grudzinski teaches that it is known to have a collapsible compartment (206) with a single opening (fig. 4a), and a ‘circular’ reinforcing ring (302) which is attached to the bottom surface (202) of the seat. It would have been obvious to have provided a reinforcing ring in the seat of Grieger so that the opening in the seat can be reinforced and therefore used by a variety of individuals. As to the limitation that the ring by polypropylene, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would be obvious to use polypropylene since it is a commonly available, inexpensive material. The recitation of "stitched" has been treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though Grudzinski is silent as to the process used to affix the ring, the apparatus disclosed is the same as that claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Grieger, Grudzinski, and Lee, as applied to claim 1, in view of Zheng (US 6,247,748).
Regarding claim 6, Grieger as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a pair of stoppers. Attention is turned to Zheng which teaches a similar foldable chair having a hand rest with a pair of stoppers, see annotated figure below, the stoppers restricting movement of the hand rest and ‘guiding holder’ and preventing the hand rest from slipping off the chair frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have provided the stoppers in the frame of Greiger as modified so that the chair arm rest portion can be firmly affixed to the frame.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Grieger, Grudzinski, and Lee, as applied to claim 1, in view of Mineo (US 2009/0019632) and Entrikin (US 1,467,718).
Regarding claim 12, Grieger as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a cape. Attention is turned to Mineo which teaches that it is common in the portable toilet arts to provide a cape (5, 6) bound about the neck of a user (see fig. 5) as to cover them from the neck to the ground when seated using a toilet (1). It would have been obvious to have provided the cape of Mineo in the toilet apparatus of Grieger to ensure user privacy.
Mineo is silent as to the cape being made of a nylon material. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would be obvious to use nylon since it is a commonly available, inexpensive material.
The combination however does not show ties. Attention is turned Entrikin which teaches that it is notoriously old and well known to include ties (10) in a cape so that it can be adjustably fitted to a person. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided ties on the cape in the combined device of Griger so that the fit can be customized based on the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dryland (US 2,885,688) and Flores (US 11,759,063) show portable toilet chairs of interest to the instant invention. Shyr (US 6,00,752) shows a folding chair with a zipper attached receptacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754