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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the docket number markings should be deleted from the margins.
Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,402 in view of CN 101715313 A to STAUBER et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he/she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. A more specific claim “anticipates” the broader claim. In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. Thus, the two claims are not patentably distinct. In some instances, the application claim merely adds an obvious feature absent from the patent claim.
In this instance, the patented claim is analogous to a primary reference which has every element except that which has been added in the application claim; therefore, a teaching reference for the difference and supporting rationale as to why it would have been obvious to make the modification establishes why the two claims are not patentably distinct. Furthermore, the subject matter of claim 1 of the instant invention is further disclosed by claim 1 of the ‘402 patent. Thus, Chung does not disclose a heater. However, Stauber teaches a heater 122 within the cover ([para 0049, 0051-0061]) and the heater is configured to generate heat for an area of the cover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the toilet cover of Chung as taught by Stauber such that adding a heater for the cover of the toilet provides a comfortable temperature of the surface of the toilet cover when a user leans a back portion against the cover.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,189 in view of CN 101715313 A to STAUBER et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he/she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. A more specific claim “anticipates” the broader claim. In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. Thus, the two claims are not patentably distinct. In some instances, the application claim merely adds an obvious feature absent from the patent claim. In this instance, the patented claim is analogous to a primary reference which has every element except that which has been added in the application claim; therefore, a teaching reference for the difference and supporting rationale as to why it would have been obvious to make the modification establishes why the two claims are not patentably distinct. The subject matter of claim 1 is further disclosed by claims 11 and 20 of the ‘189 patent. Thus, Chung does not disclose a heater. However, Stauber teaches a heater 122 within the cover ([para 0049, 0051-0061]) and the heater is configured to generate heat for an area of the cover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the toilet cover of Chung as taught by Stauber such that adding a heater for the cover of the toilet provides a comfortable temperature of the surface of the toilet cover when a user leans a back portion against the cover.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 759,065 in view of CN 101715313 A to STAUBER et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he/she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. A more specific claim “anticipates” the broader claim. In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. Thus, the two claims are not patentably distinct. In some instances, the application claim merely adds an obvious feature absent from the patent claim. In this instance, the patented claim is analogous to a primary reference which has every element except that which has been added in the application claim; therefore, a teaching reference for the difference and supporting rationale as to why it would have been obvious to make the modification establishes why the two claims are not patentably distinct. The subject matter of claim 1 is further disclosed by claims 1-2 of the ‘065 patent. Thus, Chung does not disclose a heater. However, Stauber teaches a heater 122 within the cover ([para 0049, 0051-0061]) and the heater is configured to generate heat for an area of the cover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the toilet cover of Chung as taught by Stauber such that adding a heater for the cover of the toilet provides a comfortable temperature of the surface of the toilet cover when a user leans a back portion against the cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are free from the prior art of record. Claims 2-14 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, WO 2026134310 A1 to Kozen is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a toilet seat device 22, a radio wave sensor that detects a moving body, a heater and a control unit that causes the toilet seat device to execute a prescribed operation on the basis of the detection result of the radio wave sensor.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
474
media_image2.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 Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights