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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cavity, input operation, trigger signal (claim 1), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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: A’, B’ (figure 1).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: AA’, BB’ (see para 0028).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In line 1, “An intelligent toilet seat, a toilet and a monitoring system are provided. The intelligent toilet seat includes: a toilet” should read --The intelligent toilet seat includes a toilet--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 11, “to an outside” is unclear as to outside of what structure. For clarity, the Examiner suggests using language that indicates that the reminder signal is sent outside a named structure (e.g., a user device; see Spec para 0045). Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 13, the term, “APPs” is unclear as to whether it is trademark/trade (MPEP 608.01(v)) or an acronym. According to the Specification (see para 0054), the term is used to identify/describe applications. Accordingly, for clarity, the Examiner suggests wording, --APPs (applications)-- in at least the first occurrence.
Since claims 2-14 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 9, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 205 881 115 U to Songyulong.
Re. claim 1, Songyulong discloses an intelligent toilet seat, comprising a toilet seat box comprising a seat box housing 1, wherein the seat box housing defines a cavity (in 1); a toilet seat ring (see fig. 2 ring below cover) pivotally connected with the toilet seat box; a reminder button 6 arranged on a side wall of the seat box housing and configured to accept an input operation to generate a trigger signal; and a control device 1-6 accommodated in the cavity and comprising a control module 3 and an loT communication module 4, wherein the control module is electrically connected with the reminder button and the loT communication module respectively (see fig. 1), and is configured to trigger the loT communication module to wirelessly send a reminder signal to an outside upon receiving the trigger signal from the reminder button (see claim 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 2, Songyulong further discloses the reminder signal comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a reminder signal sent continuously, a reminder signal sent at a predetermined frequency 5, a reminder signal sent for a predetermined duration 5 and a reminder signal sent once 5 (see figure 1-2).
Re. claim 3, Songyulong further discloses the intelligent toilet seat further comprises a toilet cover pivotally connected with the toilet seat box, and the toilet cover and the toilet seat ring are respectively connected with the toilet seat box through pivoting shafts parallel to each other (see figure 2).
Re. claim 9, Songyulong further discloses the intelligent toilet seat further comprises a buzzer 3 arranged in the cavity or on the side wall of the seat box housing and electrically connected with the control module, and the buzzer is configured to output a prompt sound based on the trigger signal (see figs. 1-2).
Re. claim 12, Songyulong further discloses a toilet body; and an intelligent toilet seat the intelligent toilet seat is detachably connected with the toilet body (see fig. 2).
Re. claim 13, Songyulong further discloses a monitoring system 2,3,4,5,6 based on an intelligent toilet seat (see fig. 2), one or multiple APPs installed on a user equipment and/or a cloud server of the intelligent toilet seat, wherein data associated with the intelligent toilet seat is wirelessly transmitted 4 between the intelligent toilet seat and the one or multiple APPs, and the one or multiple APPs are configured to remotely control the intelligent toilet seat (cloud server; see fig. 2).
Re. claim 14, Songyulong further discloses the monitoring system comprises the multiple APPs, wherein one APP wirelessly communicates 4 with one or more of the intelligent toilet seat, other APPs and the cloud server to transmit data associated with the intelligent toilet seat (see abstract; see fig. 2).
Re. claim 15, Songyulong further discloses the intelligent toilet seat wirelessly communicates with the cloud server via a router 4 (cloud server; see fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songyulong as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of CN 106 638 850 A to Harbin
Re. claim 4, Songyulong does not disclose a button for temperature adjustment. Instead, Songyulong indicates a button for an alarm or wireless connection to a device. However, Harbin teaches a button 15 for temperature adjustment. Harbin discloses the intelligent toilet seat 2 further comprises a touch control screen 12 connection with the controller 6 and driving device 7 whereas input on the touch screen 12 to the temperature adjustment button 15 arranged on the side wall of the seat box housing (see figure below) and electrically connected with the control module 6, 12, enables the temperature adjustment (claim 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a temperature adjustment button in view of Harbin because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the know options within their technical grip.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 6, Songyulong does not disclose a heater. Instead, Songyulong indicates a button for an alarm or wireless connection to a device. However, Harbin teaches a heater 9,10 configured to heat the toilet seat ring, having a touch sensor heat button 15. Harbin discloses the intelligent toilet seat 2 further the built-in heating device 9 on the end close to the heat conducting device 10 on the end close to the toilet seat 2 where the heat is transmitted to the toilet seat, the toilet seat temperature suitable for the requirement of human body temperature by the heated heat conducting device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a temperature adjustment button in view of Harbin because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the know options within their technical grip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8 and 10-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, CN 214884161 U to Xie is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a intelligent smart toilet cover 110 having a sensor 118 for detecting a seat 120 position of a user by which the controller determines telescopic distance of the water sprayer 112.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm. Upon filing an amendment, please notify the Examiner to ensure timely processing for review. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. 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 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 https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754