DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/05/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search is not burdensome. This is not found persuasive because each species requires a different and separate search strategy and consideration including, but not limited to, text queries and databases. This is burdensome.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1 – 16 and 19 – 20 remain for examination.
Drawings
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: 46. 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the toilet seat” should read --the child potty seat--. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: fixing structure in claims 3 and 19.
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.
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 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the exterior surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is indefinite due to dependency.
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) 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nika et al. (US 2,850,744, hereinafter Nika).
Regarding claim 1, Nika discloses a potty seat (1) adaptable for sit-down use on a toilet (col. 2, ln. 24; note also that this device is fully capable of the claimed function) comprising : a child-sized seat (title)(col. 1, ln. 16) having a seating surface (top surface of 1) and a mounting receptacle (12); and a splash guard (6) having a cylindrical projection (11, see round pin) selectively engageable in the mounting receptacle (col. 1, ln. 32) and configured to permit engagement in a first (upright orientation, fig. 1) or a second orientation (collapsed orientation shown in phantom fig. 2), wherein an end (9) of the splash guard is located higher in relation to the seating surface in the first orientation than in the second orientation (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nika discloses that the splash guide is rotatable when the projection is engaged in the mounting receptacle about a rotational axis (axis of pin 11) to move between the first and second orientations (see fig. 2)
Regarding claim 8, Nika also discloses that the splash guard comprises a generally concave interior surface and a generally convex exterior surface, and the projection extending from the exterior surface along the rotational axis. See annotated figures below.
Regarding claim 10, Nika discloses a child potty seat adaptable for sit-down use on a toilet by male and female users col. 2, ln. 24; note also that this device is fully capable of the claimed function, the toilet seat comprising: a seating surface (upper surface of 1) with an opening (apparent, fig. 1) and a downwardly extending skirt (3); a mounting receptacle (12) disposed on the skirt (fig. 3); a splash guard (6) having a first end (top end, near 9) and a second end (bottom end near 13) spaced apart along a longitudinal axis (vertical axis of 6); and a projection (11) extending from a surface of the splash guard and eccentrically positioned between the first and second ends ((see fig. 1, note that 10/11 is positioned closer to the bottom than the top and is thus eccentric), the projection being rotatably engageable in the mounting receptacle (col. 1, ln. 62; col. 2, ln. 10-14); wherein rotating the splash guard between a first orientation and the second orientation while the projection is engaged in the mounting receptacle upwardly positions the first end (see fig. 1, first end 9 is upwardly oriented) or the second end (col. 2, ln. 28-30; note that when the ledges 5 are omitted and the guard rotates 180 degrees into the inoperative position, the bottom end at 13 will be oriented upwardly), respectively, and the first end being located higher above the seating surface when upwardly oriented than the second end when it is upwardly oriented, see fig. 1, the first end at 9 is clearly above the second end and above the seating surface.
Regarding claim 11 Nika also discloses that the splash guard comprises a generally concave interior surface and a generally convex exterior surface, and the projection extending from the exterior surface along the rotational axis. See annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
381
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nika, as applied to claim 1, in view of Barnes (US 2,545,598).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Nika shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a resilient retainer as claimed. Attention is turned to Barnes which teaches a similar child toilet seat having a resilient retainer (19)(col. 2, ln. 11) engagable with the toilet and the retainer extending laterally beneath a lower surface of a seat (21) on the toilet and engageable therewith to inhibit upward movement of the seat. See fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a resilient retainer/hook/clamp like that of Barnes in the seat of Nika in order to ensure a stable attachment of the child seat to the toilet seat.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nika in view Costigan (US 1,737,572).
Regarding claim 16, Nika discloses a splash guard (6) for use with a toilet seat (1) comprising: an in interior surface (see annotated figure above) spanning between generally opposing first (top at 9) and second ends (bottom at 13); an exterior surface (see annotated figure above) oppositely disposed from the interior surface (fig. 2); and a projection (11) extending from a surface (fig. 3) of the splash guard and eccentrically positioned (see fig. 1, note that 10/11 is positioned closer to the bottom than the top and is thus eccentric) between the first and second ends; and a mounting apparatus (bottom of 1, 3) including a receptacle (12), the mounting apparatus selectively connectible to the toilet seat (note that the apparatus of Nika is fully capable of this function; also col. 1, ln. 15-17, col. 2, ln. 22-27), the receptacle being configured to receive a portion of the projection (fig. 3) and retain the splash guard in a preferred orientation in relation to the toilet seat (col. 2, ln. 10-17), the preferred orientation arranging the splash guard with either the first end or the second end being upwardly oriented (see fig. 1, 2, the first end is upwardly oriented).
Nika does not show that the interior and exterior surfaces are concave and convex, respectively. Attention is turned to Costigan which teaches that splash guards for child seats are commonly structures such that the interior surface and exterior surface are concave and convex, respectively. See fig. 1 and 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the guard of Nika in the concave/convex arrangement as shown by Costigan for effective funneling and splash reduction of the urine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 -7 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.
Claims 3 – 5, 12 - 14, and 19 – 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 3 and 12, the prior art does not show a fixing structure on the splash guard which is engagable on a detent in the seat to selectively fix the guard in either of the first orientation or the second orientations. The ledge (5) is not a detent, and to the extent that the ledge (5) acts a stop to prevent further downward rotation of the guard, there is no corresponding fixing structure on the guard (6).
With respect to claim 19, the prior art does not show an additional fixing structure on the projection which is engaged in the receptacle to retain the guard in a preferred position.
Conclusion
Pang et al. (US 11,266,277), Block (US 4,516,279), Piper (1,857,328), and Zapolski (US 2,955,296) show child potty seats with splash guards of interest to the instant invention and generally presentative of the state of the art.
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