Patent Application 18275124 - Toilet-to-urinal adapter and related - Rejection
Title: Toilet-to-urinal adapter and related methodologies for potty-training children
Application Information
- Invention Title: Toilet-to-urinal adapter and related methodologies for potty-training children
- Application Number: 18275124
- Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-07-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-07-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 88465
- Art Unit: 3754
- Tech Center: 3700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/275,124 - TOILET-TO-URINAL ADAPTER AND RELATED METHODOLOGIES FOR POTTY-TRAINING CHILDREN, filed on 7/31/23. 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 9-20 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 9 and 17, the limitation, “ may have a probability of…” is indefinite as it is unclear if the waste stream enters the toilet or not, the limitation to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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, 2, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne (US Pub. 2013/0212792).
Regarding Claim 1 Osborne shows a toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter (Fig. 1-3) comprising: a. an upright hood (9) with a circumferential skirt (at 11 around through 5), said upright hood featuring and a front facing lip (at 6) around an opening (7) and said skirt featuring handles (5) and a downright portion (12) that has a forward interface with a toilet bowl or the toilet bowl's seat (Fig. 1);
b. wherein a bottom of the front facing lip defines an edge of a funnel for directing a waste stream toward an inside of the hood (Fig. 1-3); and,
c. wherein an inside surface of the hood defines sidewalls (at 6) and a back splash (at 9; inside) for said funnel, wherein the skirt features at least one foot (at 11, bottom and bottom of 9; at 5 to 12; horizontal portions) for interfacing an upper surface of a toilet bowl (Fig. 1) or the toilet bowl's seat, and wherein the at least one foot is positioned between the downright portion of the skirt and a channel (at 12) defined by the funnel, sidewalls, and backsplash so that the channel extends into the toilet bowl such that the funnel directs the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl and the back splash further directs ricocheted portions of the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl (Figs. 1-3; ¶ [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 1 where the foot provides a friction interface (Fig. 1; ¶ [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9 Osborne shows a toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter installed on a toilet bowl (Fig. 1) comprising: an upright hood (9) featuring a front facing lip (Fig. 2; shown at 6) around an opening (7), wherein a bottom of the front facing lip defines an edge of a funnel (Fig 3; 12) for directing a waste stream toward an inside of the upright hood while a top of the front facing lip defines an edge of a backsplash (at 9) such that the funnel and backsplash define a channel (shown at 7 through 12) further inside the hood, said channel running between the front lip and a bottom of the upright hood, wherein the funnel and backsplash are seamlessly or seamingly connected by sidewalls (shown near 6) to define the channel such that the funnel further directs the waste stream toward the inside of a toilet bowl (Fig. 1) and the back splash further directs ricocheted portions of the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1); a circumferential skirt (11) that has handles (5), at least one foot (bottom of 11 and 9) interfaced with the toilet bowl or a seat of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1) so that the funnel directs the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl and the back splash further directs ricocheted portions of the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1;¶ [0025]), and, a downright portion (12) that provides a forward interface with the toilet bowl (Fig. 1). where the channel defined by the funnel, side walls, and back splash suitably extends below the bottom of the upright hood to at least the same extent as the downright portion of the skirt so that the waste stream may have a probability of entering the toilet bowl while the adapter is installed on the toilet bowl (Fig. 3; ¶ [0025]).
Regarding Claim 10 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 9 where the foot provides a friction interface (Fig. 1; ¶ [0024]).
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) 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 14-17 and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US Pub. 2013/0212792).
Regarding Claim 3 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 1 and fails to show where the circumferential skirt is elliptical. However, Osborne shows a skirt that is generally elliptical. Further, changes in shape are a matter or ordinary skill in the art. The instant invention does not show that the elliptical shape is critical. The shape of the adapter is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing shapes, therefore changing the shape of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shaped device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Regarding Claim 4 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 3 but fails to show where the circumferential skirt has a width of about fifteen and four tenths inches (15.4 in) and a depth of about eleven inches (11 in). However, the width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill through routine optimization. The width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing widths and depths, therefore changing optimizing the width and the depth of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sized device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Regarding Claims 6-8 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 1 but fails to show where the adapter is molded in two parts; where a first molded part of the adapter is defined by any external surfaces of the upright hood, the handles, and funnel; and where a second molded part of the adapter is defined by the skirt, said at least one foot, said backsplash, and said sidewall.
However, his claim is considered a product by process claim. “Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process (two part molding), determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP § 2113). In this case the resulting apparatus/product is the same as the claimed product and therefore the molding process/method of production does not determine novelty. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the device in a manner that is economical to manufacturing the device.
Regarding Claim 11 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 9 and fails to show where the circumferential skirt is elliptical. However, Osborne shows a skirt that is generally elliptical. Further, changes in shape are a matter or ordinary skill in the art. The instant invention does not show that the elliptical shape is critical. The shape of the adapter is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing shapes, therefore changing the shape of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shaped device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Regarding Claim 12 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 11but fails to show where the circumferential skirt has a width of about fifteen and four tenths inches (15.4 in) and a depth of about eleven inches (11 in). However, the width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill through routine optimization. The width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing widths and depths, therefore changing optimizing the width and the depth of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sized device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Regarding Claims 14-16 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 9 but fails to show where the adapter is molded in two parts; where a first molded part of the adapter is defined by any external surfaces of the upright hood, the handles, and funnel; and where a second molded part of the adapter is defined by the skirt, said at least one foot, said backsplash, and said sidewall.
However, his claim is considered a product by process claim. “Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process (two part molding), determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP § 2113). In this case the resulting apparatus/product is the same as the claimed product and therefore the molding process/method of production does not determine novelty. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the device in a manner that is economical to manufacturing the device.
Regarding Claim 17 Osborne shows a toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter installed on a toilet bowl (Fig. 1) comprising: an upright hood (9) featuring a front facing lip (Fig. 2; shown at 6) around an opening (7), wherein a bottom of the front facing lip defines an edge of a funnel (Fig 3; 12) for directing a waste stream toward an inside of the upright hood while a top of the front facing lip defines an edge of a backsplash (at 9) such that the funnel and backsplash define a channel (shown at 7 through 12) further inside the hood, said channel running between the front lip and a bottom of the upright hood, wherein the funnel and backsplash are seamlessly or seamingly connected by sidewalls (shown near 6) to define the channel such that the funnel further directs the waste stream toward the inside of a toilet bowl (Fig. 1) and the back splash further directs ricocheted portions of the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1); a circumferential skirt (11) that has handles (5), at least one foot (bottom of 11 and 9) interfaced with the toilet bowl or a seat of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1) so that the funnel directs the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl and the back splash further directs ricocheted portions of the waste stream toward the inside of the toilet bowl (Fig. 1;¶ [0025]), and, a downright portion (12) that provides a forward interface with the toilet bowl (Fig. 1), where the channel defined by the funnel, side walls, and back splash suitably extends below the bottom of the upright hood to at least the same extent as the downright portion of the skirt so that the waste stream may have a probability of entering the toilet bowl while the adapter is installed on the toilet bowl (Fig. 3; ¶ [0025]), where the foot provides a friction interface (¶ [0025]).
Osborne fails to show where the circumferential skirt is elliptical. However, Osborne shows a skirt that is generally elliptical. Further, changes in shape are a matter or ordinary skill in the art. The instant invention does not show that the elliptical shape is critical. The shape of the adapter is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing shapes, therefore changing the shape of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shaped device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Osborne fails to show where the circumferential skirt has a width of about fifteen and four tenths inches (15.4 in) and a depth of about eleven inches (11 in). However, the width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill through routine optimization. The width and depth is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is motivated by being fit to a toilet bowl and seat. It is known that toilet bowls and seats may have differing widths and depths, therefore changing optimizing the width and the depth of the device to fit the particular toilet bowl and seat is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sized device as desired to fit the shape of the toilet.
Regarding Claims 19-20 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter of claim 18 but fails to show where the adapter is molded in two parts; where a first molded part of the adapter is defined by any external surfaces of the upright hood, the handles, and funnel; and where a second molded part of the adapter is defined by the skirt, said at least one foot, said backsplash, and said sidewall.
However, his claim is considered a product by process claim. “Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process (two part molding), determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP § 2113). In this case the resulting apparatus/product is the same as the claimed product and therefore the molding process/method of production does not determine novelty. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the device in a manner that is economical to manufacturing the device.
Claim(s) 5, 13 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US Pub. 2013/0212792) in view of Bird (US Pub. 2009/0172871).
Regarding Claim 5 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter installed on a toilet bowl of claim 4 but fails to show where at least one inner surface of the upright hood is smooth in texture with a 6P1Al smoothness or similar such that the waste stream will have reduced surface tension when interacting with said at least one inner surface whereby the stream will have a tendency toward the inside of the toilet bowl. However, Bird shows a urinal device with a hard smooth material that limits fluid absorption (¶ [0041]). 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 Osborne to include a hard smooth thermoplastic material that limits fluid absorption for the purpose of the urine, quickly flowing into the toilet bowl as shown by Bird.
Regarding Claim 13 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter installed on a toilet bowl of claim 12 but fails to show where at least one inner surface of the upright hood is smooth in texture with a 6P1Al smoothness or similar such that the waste stream will have reduced surface tension when interacting with said at least one inner surface whereby the stream will have a tendency toward the inside of the toilet bowl. However, Bird shows a urinal device with a hard smooth material that limits fluid absorption (¶ [0041]). 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 Osborne to include a hard smooth thermoplastic material that limits fluid absorption for the purpose of the urine, quickly flowing into the toilet bowl as shown by Bird.
Regarding Claim 18 Osborne shows the toilet bowl-to-urinal adapter installed on a toilet bowl of claim 17 but fails to show where at least one inner surface of the upright hood is smooth in texture with a 6P1Al smoothness or similar such that the waste stream will have reduced surface tension when interacting with said at least one inner surface whereby the stream will have a tendency toward the inside of the toilet bowl. However, Bird shows a urinal device with a hard smooth material that limits fluid absorption (¶ [0041]). 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 Osborne to include a hard smooth thermoplastic material that limits fluid absorption for the purpose of the urine, quickly flowing into the toilet bowl as shown by Bird.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Altruz (US 11,950,731) shows a urinal device with a hydrophobic coating; McAleenan, Jr. (US 7,043,773) shows a similar urinal device; Wertz (US 5,465,431) shows the general state of the art.
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 5/19/2025
