DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/890,114 - LAVATORY ARRANGEMENT, filed on 9/19/2024. Claims 1-19 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 .
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 funnel arrangement of claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: a cabinet door and a toilet cabinet door should be consistently referred to throughout the claims, however, it is understood that they are both referring to the toilet cabinet door (1).
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 6, 10 and 19 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 claim 6, the limitation, “the flushing system” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if this is same as “the vacuum flushing system” in line 3 of claim 6 and as introduced in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, “the door-and-wall arrangement” lacks antecedent basis as it depends from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation, “(that corresponds with the toilet bowl in a folded-away state)” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation within the parenthesis is a limitation to be included in the claim language.
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, 3, 4, 6, 14, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimaldi (WO 2011/048544 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Grimaldi shows a lavatory arrangement (Fig. 1; page 1, lines 6-10), comprising: a vacuum flushing system (page 8, lines 3-5); and a folding toilet bowl (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a tiltable flap (14; Fig. 1), wherein the tiltable flap is configured to facilitate an unfolding of the toilet bowl (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 3, further comprising a lever arrangement (13 acts as a lever) that links the toilet bowl to the tiltable flap.
Regarding claim 6 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 1, further comprising an exterior casing (wall at 9’) that partially encloses the flushing system and the toilet bowl, wherein a side of the exterior casing that faces the vacuum flushing system and the toilet bowl comprises a guiding channel (where 8 goes through 6’) for a waste hose (8), wherein the guiding channel is at least partially defined by an elongated cavity (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 1, further comprising at least one gas spring (11) that comprises a heating mechanism (conventionally piston pressure on the contained gas creates heat, the heating mechanism is the piston and gas), wherein the at least one gas spring is configured to move the toilet bowl between a folded-away state (Fig. 2) and a folded-out state (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 1, wherein the toilet bowl comprises at least one of: (a) a top surface that is partly inclined relative to a toilet seat (Fig. 1); or (b) a lateral compartment.
Regarding claim 18 Grimaldi shows a lavatory arrangement, comprising: a pivotable toilet bowl (Figs. 1-2); a lever arrangement (13 acts as a lever) coupled to the toilet bowl (2); and a tiltable flap (14) spaced from the toilet bowl and in contact with the lever arrangement (Fig. 1) such that when the toilet bowl is moved between a folded-away state and a folded-out state, the tiltable flap moves between a first position and a second position (Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 2, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimaldi (WO 2011/048544 A1) in view of Boeing Co. (EP 0 850 833 A2).
Regarding claims 2 and 16 Grimaldi shows the lavatory arrangement of claim 1, but fails to specifically show wherein the lavatory arrangement is an aircraft lavatory arrangement. However, the Grimaldi details the lavatory arrangement is for trains and boats and other small space applications, and Boeing shows a typical bathroom arrangement for an airplane. 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 Grimaldi to include being in an aircraft bathroom arrangement for the purpose of saving space in the air craft bathroom.
Regarding claim 17 Grimaldi as combined shows the aircraft of claim 16, further comprising: a cockpit (inherent in aircraft), a cabin (shown with the seats Fig. 1; Boeing), and a cabinet (60), wherein the lavatory arrangement is positioned between the cockpit and the cabin such that when a cabinet door (30) of the cabinet is in an open position, the cabinet door forms a barrier between the lavatory arrangement and the cockpit (door is rotated 90 degrees and would be between the cockpit and lavatory during the 90 degree swing).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 14 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 17 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 19 and 20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11618569. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.11,618,569. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No.12,129,032. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 8-13 and 19 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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ooi et al. (US Pub. 2017/0121025) shows the general state of the art of an aircraft lavatory assembly; Carver et al. (US Pub. 2014/0245531) shows a vacuum toilet in a lavatory assembly that is foldable; Perrin (US 6,986,171) shows fold out toilet within a cabinet and with cabinet doors; Colonna (US 2,799,864) shows a fold out toilet with levers and articulation.
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 2/18/2026