DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 10/30/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (WO 2005074777) in view of Hall et al. (US 2018/0087969 hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 1, Uno discloses a toilet seat device (26) configured to be attached to an upper part of a closet bowl (20), comprising: a seat upper plate (26a) constituting a seating surface on which a user sits; a toilet seat bottom plate (26b) joined with the upper plate to be opposed to the bowl (fig. 1); a heating device (29) disposed between the upper and lower plates to heat the upper plate; a detection device (38A) disposed on the seat (fig. 12, 21 constitutes a portion of the seat), wherein the detection device is arranged in a non-contact manner with respect to the heating device; and an insulating material with an insulating function (37)(rubber, para. [0015])
Uno does not show that that the detection device optically detects excrement, showing instead that the device is a user sensor. Attention is turned to Hall which teaches a similar toilet seat having an optical sensor (210)(para. [0022]) located on the bottom of a toilet seat (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an additional optical sensor on the toilet seat of Uno and aimed at the bowl in order to enhance the functionality of the toilet, by enabling both sensing of a user and sensing when there is excrement in the bowl. Under the proposed modification with Hall, the insulating material will be configured to suppress transfer of heat generated by the heating device to the detection device, with the insulating material being arranged between the heating device and detection device. Note that under the proposed modification, the sensor of Hall will be placed on the bottom plate of Uno similar to that illustrated in Hall and the stand offs 37 serve to insulate the detection sensor from the heater. This is functionality is further contemplated by Uno as shown in figure 1, sensor unit 38/40 is insulated from the heating device by the rubber standoffs.
Regarding claim 4, Uno as modified further shows a clearance between the heating device and insulating material and between the insulating material and the detection device (37 is separated from the heating tube 29 by reflector 28; 37 is separated from the sensor the sensor located on the bottom plate by the thickness of the bottom plate).
Regarding claim 5, Uno as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the heating device is not disposed right above the detection device. Note, under the proposed modification with Hall, the detection device will be located on the bottom plate of the seat and there is a gap between the heating device and sensor formed by the stand offs.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno and Hall, as applied to claim 1, in view of Borkholder et al. (US 2016/0374619 hereinafter Borkholder).
Regarding claim 6, Uno as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and shows that the detection device projects from the toilet seat bottom plate (see fig. 2 of Hall), but is silent as to the manner of attachment. Attention is turned to Borkholder which teaches that it is known to include a sensor in a toilet seat bottom (BCG, fig. 2) that is embedded in a recess in the toilet seat (paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have attached the sensor in the deice of Uno as modified in a such a manner that part of the sensor is embedded in the toilet seat in order to provide for firm attachment and sufficient room for controllers or other portions of the sensor.
Regarding claim 7, Uno as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent as to the particulars of a length in a height direction of the part of the detection device embedded inside the toilet seat is shorter than a distance between the heating device and the detection device. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the toilet seat of Uno to perform equally well as applicant' s. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Uno to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno and Hall, as applied to claim 1, in view of Nogoshi et al. (US 10,570,599 hereinafter Nogoshi).
Regarding claim 8, Uno shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows the closet bowl and the toilet seat device of claim attached to an upper part of the bowl (see fig. 2), but does not show a rim water discharge port configured to discharge washing water along a rim part of the closet bowl. Attention is turned to Nogoshi which teaches a similar toilet having a rim water discharge port (811) configured to discharge washing water along a rim part of the bowl (see fig. 3a, 3b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a rim water port like that taught by Nogoshi in the device of Uno as modified in order to effectively clean the toilet after use.
Regarding claim 9, under the proposed modification with Hall, the detection device will be located at a position not opposed to the rim water discharge port. See fig. 3A of Nogoshi that the rim water port 811 is located in a front half of the bowl, while the sensor 201 of Hall is located in the back half of the bowl.
Regarding claim 10, under the proposed modification of Uno in view of Hall, the detection device is arranged along a peripheral part of the toilet seat upper plate (see fig. 2 of Hall, 210 is located within an inner periphery of the rim of the bowl and within an inner extent of the toilet seat opening, which is considered a peripheral part of the top surface or upper plate of the seat).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Uno teaches away from the claimed purpose of blocking heat. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Uno teaches using a reflector 28 to direct heat towards the seating surface. However, the device of Uno in view of Hall still results in insulation between the detection device and the heater, the insulation occurring because the reflector is located on insulating standoffs and is thus separated from the source. The combination does not result in heat being directed toward the modified detection device. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights