DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/646,466 - ELECTRO-MECHANICAL TOILET SEAT SYSTEM, filed on 4/25/24. Claims 3-17 and 29-33 are pending. Claims 1-2, 18-28 and 34-40 have been canceled. Claims 16 & 17 have been withdrawn. Claims 3-15 and 29-33 remain for examination.
This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 4/21/26. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be a typo and “lower” should be –lowering--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 29, 30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323).
Regarding Claim 3 Nishiyama shows a self-lowering toilet lid system (10) comprising: a toilet seat (14) configured to be sat upon by a user;
a toilet lid (16);
a hinge rotatably (generally as 20, 30; 26 and 27) coupling the toilet seat and lid, the hinge configured so that the toilet lid and seat are transitionable between a down position and an up position (¶ [0014]);
a mechanical lowering device (30) configured to self-lower the toilet lid towards the down position;
a mechanical latch (motor 22 lock (S220); ¶ [0023]) configured to hold the lid in the up position (¶ [0016, 0023, 0025, 0036]); an electronic timing system (50; ¶ [0016]) configured to cause a lid time delay before triggering an electro- mechanical latch release system to release the mechanical latch so that the mechanical lowering device lowers the toilet lid towards the down position (¶ [0016, 0023, 0025, 0036]).
Regarding Claim 4 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, wherein the system includes a toilet bowl (¶ [0014]), and the toilet seat is rotatably coupled with the toilet bowl (¶ [0014]).
Regarding Claim 12 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, further comprising a sensing system (45) configured to detect the absence or presence of a user, the sensing system including an electronic position sensor, optical time of flight sensor, a load sensor (¶ [0016-0017]), and/or a capacitive sensor to detect when a user is near the toilet bowl, wherein the seat time delay is a function of detecting the absence of the user (¶ [0020]).
Regarding Claim 14 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, wherein the user raises the seat and lid to the up position, and the lowering of the lid biases the seat to lower to the down position (seat will close when lid closes inherently).
Regarding Claim 15 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, further comprising a hard stop configured to prevent over-rotation of the lid or seat when moved to the lifted position (inherent in motor; ¶ [0015; 0019]).
Regarding Claims 29 and 33 Nishiyama shows a method of self-lowering toilet lid system (10; Fig. 4) providing: a toilet seat (14) configured to be sat upon by a user; a toilet lid (16); a hinge rotatably (generally as 20, 30; 26 and 27) coupling the toilet seat and lid, the hinge configured so that the toilet lid and seat are transitionable between a down position and an up position (¶ [0014]); a mechanical lowering device (30) configured to self-lower the toilet lid towards the down position; a mechanical latch (motor 22 lock (S220); ¶ [0023]) configured to hold the lid in the up position (¶ [0016, 0023, 0025, 0036]); an electronic timing system (50; ¶ [0016]) configured to cause a lid time delay before triggering an electro- mechanical latch release system to release the mechanical latch so that the mechanical lowering device lowers the toilet lid towards the down position (¶ [0016, 0023, 0025, 0036]).
Regarding Claim 30 Nishiyama shows the method of claim 29, further comprising: engaging a delay system by lifting the toilet seat to the up position (¶ [0016-0036]; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 32 Nishiyama shows the method of claim 31, wherein the time delay begins after a user is not detected (¶ [0016-0036]; Fig. 4).
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) 5 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323) in view of Armstrong (US 5,570,478).
Regarding Claim 5 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, but fails to specifically show wherein electro-mechanical latch release system includes a servo motor and/or a solenoid. However, Armstrong shows a toilet seat lowering system with a latch (lock/latch is a solenoid (52) having a plunger 54) that engages the seat in the up position until the solenoid is energized and disengages the seat; note, col. 1, lines 43-56). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to use a solenoid in the latch release system for the purpose of providing the automatic and timer controlled latch release as shown by Armstrong.
Regarding Claim 31 Nishiyama shows the method of claim 30, but fails to show disengaging the delay system after the expiration of a time delay; and lowering the toilet seat using a passive lowering system after the time delay ends. However, Armstrong shows using a spring to bias the seat to the down position (note, col. 1, lines 22-53; biasing is a passive lowering system). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to include a passive lowering system for the purpose of lowering the seat and lid as shown by Armstrong, if there is a sensor or controller error.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323) in view of Andersen (US Pub. 2010/0223718).
Regarding Claim 6 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, wherein the mechanical lower[[ing]] device comprises a .
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323) in view of Plate et al. (US Pub. 2011/0113540).
Regarding Claim 7 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, but fails to show wherein the electronic timing system and/or the sensing system is substantially sealed. However, sealing electronic systems is well-known in the art especially in environments where water or moisture may be inherent as it is well-known that water may destroy or damage electronic systems. Turning to Plate. Plate details that seals are used in connections formed between electronics and other structures of the toilet (¶ [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to include the electronic timing system and/or the sensing system to be substantially sealed for the purpose of keeping liquids and moisture from damaging the systems in the bathroom toilet environment.
Regarding Claim 8 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, further comprising a hinge housing (12), but fails to show wherein the hinge housing is substantially sealed. However, sealing mechanical and electronic systems is well-known in the art especially in environments where water or moisture may be inherent as it is well-known that water may destroy or damage to mechanical and electronic systems. Turning to Plate. Plate details that seals are used in connections formed between electronics and other structures of the toilet (¶ [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to include the housing to be substantially sealed for the purpose of keeping liquids and moisture from damaging the electrical and mechanical systems in the bathroom toilet environment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323) in view of Sinha et al. (US Pub. 2022/0107632).
Regarding Claim 11 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, but fails to show wherein the seat system is integrated with an IOT flushometer. However, Sinha shows flushing systems for toilets and urinals with an IOT flushometers (¶[0027, 0049, 0050]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to integrate an IOT flushometer for the purpose of controlling water usage as shown by Sinha (¶ [0027]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. 2018/0228323).
Regarding Claim 13 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, wherein the electronic timing system includes a pre-set, fixed delay time (¶ [0020]) but fails to show the pre-set, fixed delay time is independent of a sensing system. However, this is a design choice within the skill in the art and not considered critical. The instant disclosure details that the pre-set, fixed time may be dependent on the sensor system OR independent of the sensing system (¶ [0014] of the instant invention). As such the pre-set, fixed time cannot be considered critical as either option provides a functional device. Next it would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of options, dependent, partially dependent, or independent of the sensing system. It would have been obvious to try the finite options to maximize the devices ability to lower the seat during errors of the sensing system (¶ [0022; 0023; 0025; 0026; 0027; 0029]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiyama to include a pre-set, fixed delay time for the purpose of closing the lid if sensor errors have occurred as suggested by Nishiyama.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nishiyama fails to disclose “a mechanical lowering device configured to self-lower the toilet lid”. Applicant argues that Nishiyama is motor driven which is an electrically driven opening/closing mechanism and is in contrast to the instant invention which is lowered not by direct motor actuation. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not exclude electrical facilitation. In fact the instant invention includes electrical input in the lowering process. Instant specification ¶ [0041-0043] states the seat is lifted or lowered AFTER an electro-mechanical time delay via an electronic timing system as well as a sensing system. Additionally, an electro-mechanical latch is released as part of the lifting or lowering process. The mechanical lowering device 30 of Nishiyama which is driven by an electric motor would inherently have mechanical structure within the motor as well as the mechanical lowering device including mechanical structure in the drive circuit and drive shaft. As such Nishiyama meets the claim language of the “mechanical lowering device” and the rejection of record has been maintained.
Applicant argues that Nishiyama fails to show “a mechanical latch” configured to hold the lid in the up position. Applicant argues the motor lock 22 of Nishiyama is not a structural element and instead is a lock condition (i.e. motor stall or load). The Office, however, respectfully disagrees. Nishiyama in ¶ [0023]) refers “the lock” of the motor 22 is indicated when the toilet seat reaches an upper limit (angle or when seat is physically no longer moving, creating a current lock in the motor) OR if a user is seated on the seat, thus the automatic opening is not operated. Further, the lock (lock current) necessarily would contain structure as the current would require a sensing detecting or measuring structure. Therefore Nishiyama shows a mechanical latch, meeting the claim language in full.
Applicant argues that Nishiyama fails to show an electro-mechanical latch release system, yet further argues that the latch is an electrical feature (not a structural or mechanical feature, see argument 2). Applicants arguments are contradictory. Nishiyama shows a motor lock that is both electrical and mechanical and acts as a latch to retain the seat in the condition it may be currently in. (¶ [0023]) details that the automatic opening is terminated when the lock is actuated. When the electrical current sensor detects the right conditions the motor lock (current) is ‘release’ and the seat may be opened or closed.
Applicant argues that Nishiyama fails to teach an electronic timing system configured to cause a lid time delay before triggering the latch release system. Applicant argues that the timing system of Nishiyama controls motor actuation decisions, not to delay release of a latch. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. The controller of Nishiyama controlling the motor actuation thereby controls the “latch” and lock systems as they are all a function essentially of the motor itself. Applicant argues that Nishiyama does not show the release of the latch triggers a passive mechanical lowering. However, this is not commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. As such the rejection of record meets the claim language in full and the rejection of record has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Henderson (US Pub. 2017/0086628) shows the general state of the art; Andersen (US Pub. 2010/0223718) shows the general state of the art.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID ANGWIN can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights