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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, insert --the-- before “housing”.
In claim 7, applicant’s use of “substantially sealed delay system” is acknowledged. However, applicant also refers to a “delay system”. Applicant is requested to refer consistently to “the delay system” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s use of “substantially sealed” is acknowledged and will be interpreted in accordance with the definition set forth in the as-filed specification, p. 14, ln. 9-13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Lifting system in at least claims 1, 8, and 15.
Delay system in at least claims 1, 8, and 15.
Force transmission member in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, 13, and 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 claim 4, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the hinge housing” in line 1. Claim 1 provides proper antecedent basis for “the housing” but not “the hinge housing.”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the controlled leakage channel” is unclear as to which of the “one or more leakage channels” set forth in parent claim 12 applicant intends to refer. Applicant can correct the defect by reciting --the one or more controlled leakage channels-- or --one of the one or more controlled leakage channels--. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the substantially perpendicular compression” in line 1.
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 - 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keaveney (WO 9923927).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Keaveney discloses a self-lifting toilet system (fig. 12) comprising: a hinge (8, 9, 6, 7) to rotatably couple a toilet seat (3) and a toilet bowl, the hinge configured so that the seat is transitionable from an up position to a down position (abstract); a lifting system (19, 18) configured to raise the seat towards the up position(abstract)(p. 15, ln. 1-3); a housing (70,74) having a delay system (76, 26) therein configured to cause a time delay before the lifting system causes the seat to self-lift to the up position (p. 14, ln. 11-17), the housing having an opening (see fig. 12, annotated figure below) configured to receive a force transmission member (6 pivots via shaft 20), the delay system being substantially sealed (p. 14, final three lines) and the force transmission member configured to transfer the seat motion into the substantially sealed delay system (shaft 20 transfers rotational motion to 76, such that the motion of the shaft actuates the time delay of the delay system, as per claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Keaveney discloses that the time delay is reset or paused upon application of the threshold downward force on the toilet seat (p. 14, ln. 11-17, note that the time delay is due to the time necessary to release the suctional seal, and when the downward force is applied to the seat, the seal is reestablished, thus the ordinary use of the toilet seat results in the claimed function).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Keaveney discloses that the housing has two axially side facing openings configured to allow the transfer of rotatory motion the seat delay system (see figs 12, 13a-c), the connection between the housing and shaft/axle being substantially sealed (p. 14, final three lines, see fig. 12, note that the shaft and openings are indicated as in close conformance and is considered substantially sealed).
PNG
media_image1.png
216
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Keaveney discloses that the delay system comprises a suction cup (26) and an attachment surface (75), where temporary adhesion of the cup to the attachment surface prevents the seal from self-lifting to the up position (p. 14, ln. 11-17).
Regarding claim 7, Keaveney further shows that the substantially sealed delay system includes a controlled leakage channel (43) configured to block or trap contaminants (note that the channel will block particles that are large or irregularly shaped).
Regarding claim 8, Keaveney shows a self-lifting toilet seat system comprising: a hinge (8, 9, 6, 7) at least partially positioned with a hinge housing (70, 74, fig. 12), the hinge configured to rotatably couple a toilet seat and a toilet bowl, the hinge configured so that the toilet seat is transitionable from an up position to a down position (abstract); a lifting system (19, 18)(p. 15, ln. 1-3) configured to raise the seat towards the up position(abstract)(p. 15, ln. 1-3); a substantially sealed (p. 14, last 3 lines) delay system (76, 26) configured to cause a time delay before the lifting system causes the toilet seat to self-lift towards the up position (p. 14, ln. 11-17), the hinge housing having a controlled leakage channel configured to allow for pressure equalization of the inside of the housing and the ambient environment (43), the controlled leakage channel further configured to trap or block contaminates (note that the channel will block or stop particles that are large or irregularly shaped).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in figure 12, the delay system is located within the hinge housing.
Regarding claim 10, Keaveney discloses that the delay system comprises a suction cup (26) and an attachment surface (75), where temporary adhesion of the cup to the attachment surface prevents the seal from self-lifting to the up position (p. 14, ln. 11-17).
Regarding claim 11, Keaveney shows that the suction cup is coupled to the seat through a linkage (76).
Regarding claim 14, Keaveney shows that the leakage channel is under the suction cup when the suction cup is adhered to the attachment surface. See fig. 12, showing 26 in its attached position, with 43 clearly extending downwardly from it.
Regarding claim 15, Keaveney discloses a self-lifting toilet seat system comprising: a hinge (6, 7), the hinge configured to rotatably couple the seat to the bowl, and configured that the toilet seat is transitionable from an up position to a down position (abstract); a lifting system (19, 18) configured to raise the toilet seat towards the up position (abstract)(p. 15, ln. 1-3); a delay system (76, 26) configured to cause a time delay before the lifting system causes the seat to self-lift to the up position (p. 14, ln. 11-17), wherein the delay system is configured to compress a suction cup (26) onto contact with a contact surface (75)(see figs 13a-c), the system configured so that rotation motion of lowering the seat toward the down position causes a substantially linear motion/compression of the cup onto the surface (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
319
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Keaveney shows that the delay mechanism is substantially sealed in a housing (72) of the hinge (p. 14, final three lines.)
Regarding claim 20, Keaveney shows that the substantially linear motion/compression of the cup onto the surface is actuated via a linkage (76) having a single degree of freedom (note that rotational motion about the horizontal axis, i.e., roll, is one degree of freedom).
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keaveney.
Regarding claim 16, Keaveney also shows that the suction cup is fluid permeable (via leakage channel 43), and the rate of fluid influx while the suction cup is adhered to the surface determines the time delay (col. 14, ln. 18-21). Keaveney does not specify that the suction cup is an elastomer. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is notoriously old and well know to form suction cups from elastomers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have formed the suction cup of Keaveney from an elastomer so that it can compress and form a suctional seal so that the device can function as intended. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07
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 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,617. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application recite limitations including the lifting system, the housing, the delay system, the suction cup/attachment surface, and the sealing of the delay system which substantially overlap with the limitations in the issued claims. The instant claims are broader in scope than those of the issued patent, and thus the issued patent claims anticipate the pending claims.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,968. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application recite limitations including the lifting system, the housing, the delay system, the suction cup/attachment surface, and the sealing of the delay system which substantially overlap with the limitations in the issued claims. The instant claims are broader in scope than those of the issued patent, and thus the issued patent claims anticipate the pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All pertinent prior art has been made of record in parent applications 17/987,746 and 18/415,712.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights