Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/665,709

TOILET TRAINING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 16, 2024
Examiner
EGLOFF, PETER RICHARD
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
329 granted / 775 resolved
-27.5% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
815
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 775 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. 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. 3. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krazinsky (US 2010/0218306 A1) in view of Davidson (US Patent No. 2,961664) and Cornelius (US 2008/0307592 A1). Regarding claim 1, Krazinsky discloses a toilet training apparatus to assist a user in direction of a urinary stream during urination wherein the toilet training apparatus comprises: a body (220), said body having a first end and a second end, said body having at least one wall member defining an interior volume (see Par’s. 16-17, Fig. 1), said body being releasably secured to a bottom of a toilet seat (Par. 17); wherein the body includes a target light that shines into the toilet bowl when the toilet seat is raised (Par. 26). Krazinsky further discloses the plate may contain a built-in air freshener that releases chemicals into the toilet bowl, but does not appear to disclose at least one aperture, said at least one aperture being formed in said at least one wall member of said body, said at least one aperture providing access to said interior volume of said body; and a plurality of urinary target members, said urinary target members being disposed within said interior volume of said body. However, Davidson discloses providing a hollow toilet seat that is filled with deodorizing fluid (column 1, lines 62 46-61), and a removable access plate 14 that is apertured and controls discharge of fluid into the toilet bowl based on the lowering and raising of the toilet seat (column 1, line 62 – column 2, line 29). Furthermore, Cornelius discloses that the use of urinary target members that are dropped into a toilet bowl for potty training and cleaning/freshening were well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (see abstract, Par’s. 10-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Krazinsky by providing an apertured plate secured to the underside of the toilet seat for release of material when the seat is raised and lowered, as taught by Davidson, and placing the freshening targets taught by Cornelius in the plate, to provide predictable results of automatically dispensing items that can be used for potty training and freshening upon raising the seat. Regarding claims 2-4, Cornelius further discloses the urinary target members are decomposable (Par. 10), alternate sizes and shapes (Fig’s. 3a-e), and alternate colors (Par. 8). Conclusion 5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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. /Peter R Egloff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12573311
SMART E-LEARNING SYSTEM USING ADAPTIVE VIDEO LECTURE DELIVERY BASED ON ATTENTIVENESS OF THE VIEWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555487
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC MONITORING OF TEST TAKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548469
METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO QUANTIFY CLINICAL CANNULATION SKILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548466
ACCESSIBILITY-ENABLED APPLICATION SWITCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12530987
METHOD FOR DETERMINING ASSEMBLY SEQUENCE AND GENERATING INSTRUCTION OF ASSEMBLING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+32.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 775 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month