DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/891,913 - TOILET SEAT ASSEMBLY, filed on 9/20/24. Claims 1-20 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 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 2-11 and 13-20 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 2-11 and 13-20 the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embler (US Pub. 2013/0263369).
Regarding Claim 1 Embler shows a toilet seat assembly comprising: a toilet seat (110) configured to move about a pivot axis (121), the toilet seat including a top surface (at 110; Fig. 4), a bottom surface (at 119; Fig. 2), an inner edge positioned between the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the inner edge defines a central opening of the toilet seat (can be seen in Fig. 6) and has a front apex (near 108; Fig. 6), a rear apex (rear of seat), and side apexes (at inner seat line; defines opening; Fig. 6), and an outer edge positioned between the top surface and the bottom surface inner seat line; defines opening; Fig. 6), the outer edge has a front apex and side apexes (Fig. 6), wherein the toilet seat has an inner maximum length measured perpendicular to the pivot axis between the front apex of the inner edge and the rear apex of the inner edge (Fig. 6; measured left and right on the page between the inner seat/opening line), wherein the toilet seat has an inner maximum width measured parallel to the pivot axis between the side apexes of the inner edge (Fig. 6 measured up and down on the page between the inner seat/seat opening line), wherein the toilet seat has an outer maximum length measured perpendicular to the pivot axis between the front apex of the outer edge and the pivot axis (Fig. 6; measured left to right on the page from back of seat to front apex outer seat line), wherein the toilet seat has an outer maximum width measured parallel to the pivot axis between the side apexes of the outer edge (Fig. 6, between 149 and 149; dotted lines), but fails to show wherein a ratio of the inner maximum length to the inner maximum width is between 1.24 and 1.35, wherein a ratio of the outer maximum length to the outer maximum width is between 1.13 and 1.18. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ratio of the length to the width of the seat is a function of the size of the toilet base and would be calculated and optimized to fit the opening of the toilet base and to reside appropriately on the toilet base rim. It is within the level of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of length to width to fit the user and the toilet base/rim the seat is placed on, (it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05.). Further the ratio of the length to width cannot be considered critical as then instant invention cites different ratios for different embodiments (¶ [0019; 0024; 0028; 0030]). 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 optimize the ratio of the outer maximum length to the outer maximum width, for the purpose of fitting the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 2 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 1, but fails to specifically show wherein the inner maximum length is between about 10.87 inches and about 11.13 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width and the inner maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 3 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 2, but fails to show wherein the inner maximum length is about 11.00 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the inner maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 4 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 2, but fails to show wherein the inner maximum width is between about 8.25 inches and about 8.75 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the inner maximum width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum width to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 5 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 4, but fails to specifically show wherein the inner maximum width is about 8.50 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the inner maximum width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum width to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 6 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum length is between about 16.55 inches and about 17.05 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 7 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 6, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum length is about 16.80 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 8 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 6, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum width is between about 14.44 inches and about 14.70 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum width to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 9 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 8, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum width is about 14.57 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum width to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 10 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein a ratio of the outer maximum length to the inner maximum length is between 1.49 and about 1.57. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ratio of the length to the width of the seat is a function of the size of the toilet base and would be calculated and optimized to fit the opening of the toilet base and to reside appropriately on the toilet base rim. It is within the level of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of outer maximum length to inner maximum length to fit the user and the toilet base/rim the seat is placed on, (it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05.). Further the ratio of the outer maximum length to inner maximum length cannot be considered critical as then instant invention cites different ratios for different embodiments (¶ [0020; 0021; 0024; 0028; 0030]). 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 optimize the ratio of the outer maximum length to the outer maximum width, for the purpose of fitting the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 11 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein a ratio of the outer maximum width to the inner maximum width is between 1.65 and about 1.78. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ratio of the outer maximum width to the inner maximum width of the seat is a function of the size of the toilet base and would be calculated and optimized to fit the opening of the toilet base and to reside appropriately on the toilet base rim. It is within the level of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of outer maximum width to inner maximum width to fit the user and the toilet base/rim the seat is placed on, (it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05.). Further the ratio of the outer maximum width to inner maximum width cannot be considered critical as then instant invention cites different ratios for different embodiments (¶ [0019; 0020; 0021; 0024; 0028; 0030]). 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 optimize the ratio of the outer maximum length to the outer maximum width, for the purpose of fitting the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embler (US Pub. 2013/0263369) in view of Hand (US Pub. 2013/0340154).
Regarding Claim 12 Embler shows a toilet seat assembly comprising: a toilet seat (110) configured to move about a pivot axis (121), the toilet seat including a top surface (at 110; Fig. 4), a bottom surface (at 119; Fig. 2), an inner edge positioned between the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the inner edge defines a central opening of the toilet seat (can be seen in Fig. 6) and has a front apex (near 108; Fig. 6), a rear apex (rear of seat), and side apexes (at inner seat line; defines opening; Fig. 6);
and a hinge post (Fig. 3; 904a-b) connected to the toilet seat via a hinge assembly (906, at 121), the hinge post including an aperture (inherent) but Embler fails to show the aperture defining a longitudinal axis extending along a direction perpendicular to the pivot axis and a maximum length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis. However, Hand shows a hinge post with the aperture (62; Fig. 2) defining a longitudinal axis extending along a direction perpendicular to the pivot axis and a maximum length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2). 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 Embler to include an aperture defining a longitudinal axis extending along a direction perpendicular to the pivot axis and a maximum length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis for the purpose of fitting toilet base/pedestals with variances in the post hole openings as shown by Hand.
wherein the toilet seat has an inner maximum length measured perpendicular to the pivot axis between the front apex of the inner edge and the rear apex of the inner edge (Fig. 6; measured left and right on the page between the inner seat/opening line), wherein the toilet seat has an outer maximum length measured perpendicular to the pivot axis between the front apex of the outer edge and the pivot axis (Fig. 6; measured left to right on the page from back of seat to front apex outer seat line), but fails to show wherein a ratio of the inner maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture is between 6.67 and 8.12, wherein a ratio of the outer maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture is between 10.15 and 12.45.
However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ratio of the outer maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture of the seat is a function of the size of the toilet base and would be calculated and optimized to fit the opening of the toilet base and to reside appropriately on the toilet base rim. It is within the level of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of outer maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture to fit the user and the toilet base/rim the seat is placed on, (it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05.). Further the ratio of the outer maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture cannot be considered critical as then instant invention cites different ratios for different embodiments (¶ [0019; 0020, 0021; 0024; 0028; 0030]). 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 optimize the ratio of the outer maximum length to the maximum length of the aperture, for the purpose of fitting the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 13 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, but fails to show wherein the inner maximum length is between about 10.87 inches and about 11.13 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width and the inner maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 14 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 13, but fails to show wherein the inner maximum length is about 11.00 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width and the inner maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inner maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 15 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum length is between about 16.55 inches and about 17.05 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 16 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 15, but fails to show wherein the outer maximum length is about 16.80 inches. However, Embler shows the industry standard for the outer seat length and width (¶ [0008]) and the outer maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for supporting the user and fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer maximum length to fit the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 17 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, but fails to show wherein a ratio of the outer maximum length to the inner maximum length is between 1.49 and about 1.57. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ratio of the length to the width of the seat is a function of the size of the toilet base and would be calculated and optimized to fit the opening of the toilet base and to reside appropriately on the toilet base rim. It is within the level of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of outer maximum length to inner maximum length to fit the user and the toilet base/rim the seat is placed on, (it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05.). Further the ratio of the outer maximum length to inner maximum length cannot be considered critical as then instant invention cites different ratios for different embodiments (¶ [0020; 0021; 0024; 0028; 0030]). 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 optimize the ratio of the outer maximum length to the outer maximum width, for the purpose of fitting the bowl/rim and providing appropriate support for the user to be seated upon.
Regarding Claim 18 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, wherein the aperture includes a front portion and a rear portion, and wherein the maximum length extends between the front portion and the rear portion (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19 Embler as combined shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, but fails to show wherein the maximum length is between about 1.37 inches and about 1.63 inches. However, Embler as combined with Hand shows a pedestal maximum length, and the maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the maximum length to fit the bowl/rim.
Regarding Claim 20 Embler shows the toilet seat assembly of claim 12, but fails to show the wherein the maximum length is about 1.5 inches. However, Embler as combined with Hand shows a pedestal maximum length, and the maximum length is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and would be optimized for fitting the bowl/ rim of the toilet pedestal base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the maximum length to fit the bowl/rim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Payziev et al. (US Pub. 2016/0338556) shows a similar toilet seat device; Greenspon (US 8,209,789) shows an elongated post aperture.
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 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights