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 .
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 “locking tab” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 10. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756).
Regarding claim 1, Sundberg et al. disclose a potty training system, comprising: a base 16; a platform 25 supported by the base 16 and including a central opening 15; a basin 20 supported by the platform 25, the basin 20 aligning with the central opening of the platform 25 to collect waste, and a topper 30,40 removably positioned on the platform 25, the topper 30 including an opening communicating with an interior of the basin 20, the topper 30,40 having at least one downwardly extending engagement element 37 for mating with a corresponding receptacle 17 on the platform 25 to secure a positional relationship between the topper 30,40 and the platform 25, the base 16, the platform 25, the basin 20, and the topper 30,40 are selectively configurable in at least: a first arrangement where the base 16 supports the platform 25, the basin 23, and the topper 23 to function as a standalone potty, and a second arrangement where the topper 30,40 is adapted for positioning on a conventional toilet seat separate from the base (Fig. 2).
Sundberg et al. do not disclose the basin 20 including a pour spout extending outwardly from a sidewall. Attention is directed to Marsden which teaches another potty training system comprising a basin 38 including a pour spout 65 extending outwardly from a sidewall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sundberg et al. basin to include a pour spout in view of the teaching of Marsden for facilitating dispensing the liquid waste.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the topper 30/40 includes a urine shield 36/46.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the topper 30/40 includes an elevated back 31/41.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the pour spout as taught by Marsden would extend continuously through both an upper portion and a lower portion of the sidewall.
Regarding claim 11, Sundberg et al. teach a potty training system as described above and a method of using a potty training system comprising positioning a platform 25 on a top rim of a base 16, the platform having a central opening; inserting a basin 20 into the central opening; placing a topper 30/40 on the platform 25 such that an opening of the topper 30/40 aligns with an interior of the basin 20, the topper 30/40 having at least one downwardly extending engagement element 37 for mating with a corresponding receptacle 17 on the platform 25 to secure a positional relationship between the topper 30/40 and the platform; and using the potty training system in a first configuration as a standalone potty. Sundberg et al. do not disclose the basin 20 including a pour spout extending outwardly from a sidewall. Attention is directed to Marsden which teaches another potty training system comprising a basin 38 including a pour spout 65 extending outwardly from a sidewall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sundberg et al. basin to include a pour spout in view of the teaching of Marsden for facilitating dispensing the liquid waste.
Regarding claim 12, Sundberg et al. teach a second configuration comprising placing the topper 30/40 on a conventional toilet seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, placing the base 16 on a surface is shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756) as described above and further in view of Bergman et al. (11,330,942).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Sundberg et al. do not disclose the topper 30/40 includes left and right handles extending outwardly from opposing sides of the topper 30/40. Attention is directed to Bergman et al. which teach a potty training system comprising a topper 103 includes left and right handles (Figs.1 and 2) extending outwardly from opposing sides of the topper 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sundberg et al. topper to include left and right handles in view of the teaching of Bergman et al. for facilitating carrying the topper (seat).
Claims 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756) as described above and further in view of Yang (12,514,412).
Regarding claim 5, Sundberg et al. do not teach the basin 20 includes a raised handle at a front end. Attention is directed to Yang which teaches a potty training device comprising a basin 6 includes a raised handle 22 (arc surface 23) at the front end. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sundberg et al. basin to include a raised handle 22 at the front end in view of teaching of Yang for facilitating carrying the basin.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756) as described above and further in view of John (2023/0083587).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, Sundberg et al. teach the topper is made of a pliant cushion material but do not specifically teach the topper is formed of a foam elastomer that is ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). Attention is directed John which teach a toilet seat 120 have a padding 130 made of a foam elastomer , EVA (paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to have the topper of Sundberg made of a foam elastomer (EVA) in view of the teaching of John., wherein doing so would be an obvious design choice.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756) as described above and further in view of Moriyama (2009/0119828).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sunberg et al. do not teach a flexible and fluid-impermeable liner. Attention is directed to Moriyama which teaches a commode apparatus comprising basin 100 (receptacle) including a liner 20 for catching any waste during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ a liner with Sundberg et al. basin in view of the teaching of Moriyama for catching waste during use.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg et al. (9,596,965) in view of Marsden (2008/0263756) as described above and further in view of Del Duke et al. (2019/0021560).
Regarding claim 10, Sundberg et al. do not disclose the topper includes at least one locking tab but teach positioning arms 37 for extending into holes 17 formed on the platform 25. Attention is directed to Del Duke et al. which teach a potty training device comprising a topper 107 having protruding arms 701 with hooks as locking tabs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sundberg et al. topper to include a hook on each of the extending arm in view of the teaching of Del Duke et al as a locking tab.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights