DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to 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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/25. Claims 3-15 and 29-33 remain for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of dependent claims 4-15 recite “A system…”, and should be amended to recite, --The system…-- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: mechanical lowering device in claims 3 and 29; the clutching feature of claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "and more particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The toilet lid has been claimed in claim 3 and therefore claim does not further limit claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6, 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 6 Nishiyama shows the system as defined by claim 3, further comprising a toilet lid (16).
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) 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.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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 Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 1/20/2026