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 .
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 1 - 12 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 1, in line 6, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the winged hinges.” Applicant does not set forth “a plurality of winged hinges” previously. It is noted that “the hinged wings” in line 7 is similarly defective. Applicant is required to refer to claimed features consistently.
Regarding claim 6:
“Strong durable” is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
“Any other” is indefinite since it is not clear what is included or excluded the recitation. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, applicant recite that the mounting plate comprises a picker-up latch. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and already sets forth a protruding latch with a life-tab extending therefrom. In turning to the specification, para. [0033] describes the function of the latch as automatically grabbing the toilet ring and being operable by a child by pulling. Paras. [0009], [0010] describe the picker-up latch as being a part of the lift tab. Accordingly, it is not clear if claim 7 is attempting to further define the protruding latch or if it is attempting to set forth an additional structure. Since the latter is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed, the former will be assumed for the purposes of examination. Clarification by amendment is required.
Regarding claim 11:
It is not clear if “a first flexible portion where the first portion and second portion meet” refers to the “at least one flexible portion” set forth in parent claim 3. As best understood, the flexible portion that joins the first and second portions is the same one as referenced in claim 3. To correct the defect, the examiner recommends reciting --the at least one flexible portion is a first flexible portion-- or the like.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the male member” in line 3.
Regarding claim 12, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the hinge of [the] first flexible portion and second flexible portion.” Claim 3, on which this claim depends, only sets forth “at least one flexible portion” and does not further specify first or second flexible portions. It is not clear if this claim is intended to depend from claim 3 or claim 11. Correction by amendment is required.
The remaining claims are indefinite insofar as they depend from rejected base claims. In view of the above defects, the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 - 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (US 4,516,279) in view of Liu (CN 107684392) and Chicca et al. (US 12,582,273 hereinafter Chicca).
Regarding claim 1, Block discloses a toilet training seat (1) comprising: a first piece (5) comprising a toilet seat ring (fig. 2) and a plurality of wing portions (6, 18) protruding from a portion of the ring; a second piece (7) comprising a mounting plate (11) and a protruding latch (horizontal portion 30); and a lift-tab (30 that engages with seat) extending from a portion of the protruding latch, wherein the wing portions comprise ends (19) that correspond to a mounting structure (26) on the plate.
Block does not specify that the wing portions are hinged. Attention is turned to Chicca which teaches a similar toilet training seat (10) having a wing portion with a hinge (16)(fig 6) that enables the training seat to be moved between use (fig. 3) and stowed positions (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the wing portions of Block with a hinge in order to allow for the wings to be flush when in either of the use or stowed positions so as to eliminate pinch points.
Block also does not show that the mounting plate comprises female insert pockets that correspond to and engage male ends of the hinged wings. Attention is turned to Liu which teaches a similar toilet training seat having a mounting plate (9) with a female pocket (4) that corresponds to an engages with a male end (3) of a hinged wing portion (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the winged hinge portions of Block with male ends that correspond to female insert pockets since mating male and female couplers are common in the art for releasably joining parts. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, Block as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that each hinged wing has a first portion extending in the same plate as the seat ring and a second portion extending upwardly at an angle from the first. See annotated figure below.
Regarding claim 3, Block as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows at least one flexible portion which is a living hinge (16)(col. 2, ln. 38) which joins the first and second portions.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Block as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that the mounting plate (11) is attached to a portion of a toilet seat lid (4) by adhesive tape (col. 6, ln. 11 - 13).
Regarding claim 6, Block also shows that the mounting plate is made from plastic (col. 6, ln. 8-10).
Regarding claims 7 - 9, Block as modified shows that the protruding latch is a picker-up latch (col. 6, ln. 25-31) and extends perpendicularly from the mounting plate via plate (horizontal portion of 30) and has a hook (curved portion of 30) which extend perpendicularly downward from the plate. See figure 4 and note that the orientations are considered to be ‘perpendicular’ insofar as applicant’s own latch is substantially perpendicularly oriented (see fig. 6 of the as-filed disclosure).
Regarding claim 11, Block as modified by Chicca shows all of the invention as discussed above, and further shows that the first and second portions of each hinged winged portions are joined by the at least one flexible living hinge (16 of Chicca). But Block as modified does not show that there is a second flexible portion which acts as a hinge that is positioned below the male member. Attention is again turned to Liu which teaches it is known to provide a second flexible hinge portion below the male end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the winged portions with a second hinge in order to allow for increased flexibility of the apparatus when stowing or folding.
Regarding claim 12, Block as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and Chicca further shows that it is known to use a living hinge (16) on thin plastic stock. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have made the first and second flexible portions living hinges since it is a common way to provide for bending/hinged movement without requiring extra components or parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
392
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
559
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block, Liu, and Chicca, as applied to claim 9, in view of McLaughlin (US 275,838).
Regarding claim 10, Block shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that there is a nub/ridge positioned toward the end of the hook and a notch positioned above it. Attention is turned to McLaughlin which teaches a similar latch D having a ridge (see annotated figure below) and a notch positioned above it (g’). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the nub and cutout/notch structure of McLaughlin in the latch of Block since these structures are common in the connection arts to affect firm but reversible attachments.
PNG
media_image4.png
323
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marroquin (US 2022/0142420) shows a stowable/foldable child seat of interest to the instant invention.
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