DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/739,432 - DEVICE FOR PREVENTION OF URINE LEAKAGE, filed on 6/11/24. Claims 1-7 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: a semi colon is missing after comprising. Each additional limitation begins with a capital letter rather than a lower case. The limitation “a bottom side of a toilet seat” is objected to as it needs clarification of which side is being considered the bottom side.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears as though claim 2, should include the appropriate preamble and should be dependent from claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Claim 2 is being treated as depending from claim 1, rather than being an independent claim. Further, claim 2 does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required to avoid additional 35 USC § 112 issues for claim 2.
Claims 1 and 7, the limitation, “being of a quality” is objected to as quality does not describe the structure of the material that is ‘non porous and prevents liquids from passing through’; and the specification does not provide additional details to define ‘quality’. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-7 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.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, “the means of attaching…”, lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The limitation “the bottom of a toilet seat” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is unclear if is the same as “the bottom side of a toilet seat”.
Regarding Claims 4 and 7 the limitation “a toilet bowl” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is ‘the standard toilet bowl’ previously recited.
Regarding Claim 5 the limitation “the contours” lack antecedent basis in the claim as the claim depends from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6 the limitation “the contours” lack antecedent basis in the claim as the claim depends from claim 1.
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) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg (US Pub. 2013/0219604) in view of McCarthy (US Pub. 2010/0275354).
Regarding Claim 1 Gregg shows an apparatus comprising; A
Regarding Claim 3 Gregg shows the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the means of attaching the apparatus to the toilet is by adhering (adhesive; ¶ [0006]) the apparatus to the bottom of a toilet seat (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 4 Gregg shows the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is dimensioned to not cover the entire surface of a toilet seat or bowl, so that the apparatus does not fully prevent air flow to a toilet bowl (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 5 Gregg shows the rear portion as in claim 1, wherein the contours of the rear portion are configured to guide liquid into the toilet bowl (Figs. 1 & 5).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg (US Pub. 2013/0219604) in view of McCarthy (US Pub. 2010/0275354) in further view of Oishi (JP 2004 4225255 A).
Regarding Claim 6 Gregg shows the rear portion as in claim 1, but fails to show wherein the contours of the rear portion are configured to reduce splashing of liquid towards a toilet user. However, Oishi shows using contours (Fig. 12) for reducing splashing of liquid towards a toilet user (Fig. 12; liquid is directed downward into the bowl rather than back onto the user). 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 Gregg to include contours for directing the liquid downward and away from the user for the purpose of reducing splash back of liquid back onto a seated user as shown by Oishi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 2 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 (NOTE: the above objections must be corrected prior to allowance of this claim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Turocy (US 11,572,680) shows the general state of the art; Neal (US Pub. 2016/0244956) 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 12/8/2025