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 without traverse of Species II and Subspecies V in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 10-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 7,185,375 (hereinafter Movsas).
Regarding claim 9, Movsas discloses an outdoor chair, comprising:
a seat (14) including an opening (where waste receptacle 16 is inserted);
a toilet component (waste receptacle 16) inserted through the opening, wherein the toilet component includes a toilet seat (top flange of 16 as shown in Fig. 1) having a radius larger than the opening such that the toilet seat sits on a top surface of the seat (see Fig. 1); wherein the toilet component includes a hollow base portion (see Fig. 5: receptacle portion of 16 that extends below the seat 14) having a top (at the line about where 16 is pointing in Fig. 5) opens to the toilet seat; and wherein the seat is connected to a roof component (canopy 30) by one or more supports (24).
Regarding claim 14, the outdoor chair of claim 9, wherein the seat includes a top layer of fabric stretched across the full width of the seat and a second layer including the opening.
Regarding claim 15, the outdoor chair of claim 9, wherein the hollow base portion of the toilet component is collapsible (see col. 2, lines 60-65: the “netting or meshwork” is collapsible).
Regarding claim 16, the outdoor chair of claim 9, wherein one or more holding apparatuses (20) are attached to one or more armrests (18) connected to the seat.
Regarding claim 17, Movsas discloses an outdoor chair, comprising:
a seat (14) including an opening (where waste receptacle 16 is inserted);
a toilet component (waste receptacle 16) inserted through the opening, wherein the toilet component includes a toilet seat (top flange of 16 as shown in Fig. 1) having a radius larger than the opening such that the toilet seat sits on a top surface of the seat (see Fig. 1); wherein the one or more holding apparatuses (20) each include an extendable prong (see Fig. 1: the extension under 20); and wherein the toilet component includes a hollow base portion (see Fig. 5: receptacle portion of 16 that extends below the seat 14) having a top (at the line about where 16 is pointing in Fig. 5) opens to the toilet seat.
Regarding claim 19, the outdoor chair of claim 17, wherein the seat is connected to a roof component (canopy 30) by one or more supports (24).
Regarding claim 20, the outdoor chair of claim 17, wherein the hollow base portion of the toilet component is collapsible (see col. 2, lines 60-65: the “netting or meshwork” is collapsible).
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Movsas in view US 6,112,339 (hereinafter Nichols).
Regarding claim 1, Movsas discloses an outdoor chair, comprising:
a seat (14) including an opening (where waste receptacle 16 is inserted); and
a toilet component (waste receptacle 16) inserted through the opening, wherein the toilet component includes a toilet seat (top flange of 16 as shown in Fig. 1) having a radius larger than the opening such that the toilet seat sits on a top surface of the seat (see Fig. 1); wherein the toilet component includes a hollow base portion (see Fig. 5: receptacle portion of 16 that extends below the seat 14) having a top (at the line about where 16 is pointing in Fig. 5) opens to the toilet seat. Although Movsas does not teach the hollow base portion includes a plurality of ribs connected by a plurality of collapsible sections, such that the hollow base portion is collapsible, attention is directed to the Nichols reference which teaches an analogous portable toilet component comprising a toilet seat (24) having a hollow base portion (container 54) comprises a plurality of ribs (see Fig. 5ribs at the fold lines of 54) connected by a plurality of collapsible sections (three sections), such that the hollow base portion is collapsible (see col. 3, lines 5-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the hollow base portion of Movsas to include a plurality of ribs connected by a plurality of collapsible sections as taught by Nichols in order to provide the ease of transportation.
Regarding claim 2, the outdoor chair of claim 1, the combination of Movsas and Nichols teaches a toilet seat includes a tab (similar to tab 36 of Nichols) extending laterally from the seat in order to provide support for the toilet on a plurality of different structures.
Regarding claim 3, the outdoor chair of claim 1, wherein Movsas teaches the outdoor chair is foldable.
Regarding claim 4, the outdoor chair of claim 1, the combination of Movsas and Nichols teaches a toilet seat includes a retaining ring (similar to member 48 of Nichols) configured to abut and support a top rim of the hollow base portion of the toilet component (similar to members 48 and 54 of Nichols).
Regarding claim 5, the outdoor chair of claim 1, the combination of Movsas and Nichols teaches a toilet seat is hingedly connected to the toilet component (similar to hinge 70 of Nichols).
Regarding claim 6, the outdoor chair of claim 1, wherein Movsas teaches the seat includes a top layer of fabric stretched across the full width of the seat and a second layer including the opening.
Regarding claim 7, the outdoor chair of claim 1, wherein Movsas teaches the seat is connected to a roof component (canopy 30) by one or more supports (24).
Regarding claim 8, the outdoor chair of claim 1, wherein Movsas teaches one or more holding apparatuses (20) are attached to one or more armrests (18) connected to the seat.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Movsas in view US 6,305,035 (hereinafter Morris).
Regarding claim 18, Movsas teaches the outdoor chair of claim 17 as discussed above, wherein one or more holding apparatuses are for holding toilet paper rolls but fails to teach the specific of the extendable prong of the one or more holding apparatuses is configured to be inserted into a central hole of a roll of toilet paper.
Attention is directed to the Morris reference which teaches an analogous chair having armrests having one or more holding apparatuses each include an extendable prong (10) configured to be inserted into a central hole of a roll of toilet paper (12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the one or more holding apparatuses of Movsas with one or more holding apparatuses as taught by Morris, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights