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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,952 (hereinafter Mochkin). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are a broader version of claims 1-20 of Mochkin, respectively.
Claim 1 of the instant application is similar to claim 1 of Mochkin minus the limitations of “an upper guide bead portion and a lower sealing portion, said upper guide portion forming a top edge defining a mouth opening into said interior” and “one or more at least partially exterior-facing guide ribs, said interior-facing mechanism of said first panel oriented to engage said interior-facing mechanism of said second panel.”
Claims 2-3 are similar to claims 2-3 of Mochkin, respectively.
Claim 4 of the instant application is similar to claim 4 of Mochkin plus the additional limitations “wherein each of said top portions further comprises an upper guide bead portion and a lower sealing portion, said upper guide bead portion forming said top edge, said lower sealing portion comprising said interior-facing sealing mechanism and one or more at least partially exterior-facing guide ribs, said interior-facing sealing mechanism of said first panel oriented to engage said interior-facing sealing mechanism of said second panel to permanently or releasably seal said mouth.” The limitations are a part of claim 1 of Mochkin.
Claims 5-7 are similar to claims 5-7 of Mochkin, respectively.
Claims 8-10 are similar to claims 9-11 of Mochkin, respectively.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 8 of Mochkin.
Claims 12-16 are similar to claims 12-16 of Mochkin, respectively.
Claim 17 of the instant application is similar to claim 17 of Mochkin minus the limitations of “a first upper guide bead portion, and one or more at least partially exterior-facing first guide ribs;” “a second upper guide bead portion and a lower sealing portion;” and “one or more at least partially exterior-facing second guide ribs.”
Claim 18 of the instant application is similar to claim 18 of Mochkin plus the additional limitations “wherein said first vertical section further comprises a first upper guide bead portion, and one or more at least partially exterior-facing first guide ribs; wherein each of said top portions of said second vertical section further comprises a second upper guide bead portion and a lower sealing portion, said second upper guide bead portion forming said top edge, said lower sealing portion comprising said interior-facing sealing mechanism and one or more at least partially exterior-facing second guide ribs, said interior-facing sealing mechanism of said first panel oriented to engage said interior-facing sealing mechanism of said second panel to permanently or releasably seal said mouth.” The limitations are a part of claim 17 of Mochkin.
Claims 19 is similar to claim 20 of Mochkin.
Claims 20 is similar to claim 19 of Mochkin.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The amended claims, filed 03/28/25, are allowable over the prior art of record.
None of the prior art of record alone or in combination teaches a toilet assembly comprising the limitations in line 7+ of independent claims 1 and 17. Special attention is directed to an opener arm assembly, a bag assembly, and the drive assembly as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
US 5,960,487 (Hawkins) teaches a toilet assembly comprising a toilet seat (15), a main chassis (16), a front bag guide (21). Hawkins fails to teach an opener arm assembly, a bag assembly, and the drive assembly as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17.
US 9,364,124 (Morris) teaches a toilet assembly comprising a toilet seat (18), a toilet lid (12), a main chassis (14). Morris fails to teach a front bag guide, an opener arm assembly, a bag assembly, and the drive assembly as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17.
US 2009/0255045 (Sakurai) teaches a toilet assembly comprising a toilet seat (1a), a toilet lid (4), a main chassis (1). Sakurai fails to teach a front bag guide, an opener arm assembly, a bag assembly, and the drive assembly as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17.
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 on (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