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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 27, 48, 58-70, and 73-77 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 60 and 74 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 60 recites “the fluid applicator aperture” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the fluid applicator aperture” is interpreted to read --the fluid applicator receiving aperture--.
Claim 74 recites “the fluid applicator aperture” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the fluid applicator aperture” is interpreted to read --the fluid applicator receiving aperture--.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
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) 27, 48, 58-60, 62, 64-66, and 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101688697; machine translation attached) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912).
Regarding claim 27, Lee discloses a fluid applicator (100) comprising:
a body (110) having a fluid applicator length (length of 110), a fluid applicator width (width of 110), a fluid applicator thickness (thickness of 110), and a fluid receiving aperture (aperture connecting to 200) wherein the fluid applicator length is greater than the fluid applicator width (see Fig. 1-4) wherein the fluid applicator is in fluid communication with a fluid source (300), and
a fluid delivery aperture (aperture of 120, 130) at a distal end of the body (see Fig. 2-4) operable to deliver fluid from the fluid applicator when a fluid applicator controller (111) is engaged via a fluid applicator controller aperture (aperture of 111) in the body of the fluid applicator.
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluid delivery aperture is a triangular aperture with concave sides as claimed.
McCabe discloses a perineal self-cleansing system and method of use wherein the fluid delivery aperture is a triangular aperture (50, Fig. 4-10, in particular Fig. 5) with concave sides (sides of 50, ¶ 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fluid delivery aperture of Lee, to be a triangular aperture with concave sides as claimed, as taught by McCabe, since it was known in the art that a nozzle can define other shapes and sizes to determine the direction and characteristics of the stream of fluid at a desired flow rate and desired flow pattern and the opening can have desirable cleaning characteristics (¶ 0025). Furthermore, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the shape of the claimed fluid delivery aperture (Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 0064) and the combination above would work appropriately.
Regarding claim 48, Lee discloses a method of using a fluid applicator (100) comprising:
providing the fluid applicator wherein the fluid applicator comprises a body (110) having a fluid applicator length (length of 110), a fluid applicator width (width of 110), a fluid applicator thickness (thickness of 110), and a fluid receiving aperture (aperture of 110) at a distal end of the body (see Fig. 2-4) wherein the fluid applicator length is greater than the fluid applicator width (see Fig. 1-4) wherein the fluid applicator is in fluid communication with a fluid source (300), and a fluid delivery aperture (aperture of 120, 130) operable to deliver fluid from the fluid applicator when a fluid applicator controller (111) is engaged by a user via a fluid applicator controller aperture (aperture of 111) in the body of the fluid applicator;
directing the fluid delivery aperture toward a target area selected from genitalia, perineum and anus (¶ 0022); and
activating the fluid applicator to deliver a fluid to the target area (¶ 0029).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluid delivery aperture is a triangular aperture with concave sides as claimed.
McCabe discloses a perineal self-cleansing system and method of use wherein the fluid delivery aperture is a triangular aperture (50, Fig. 4-10, in particular Fig. 5) with concave sides (sides of 50, ¶ 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fluid delivery aperture of Lee, to be a triangular aperture with concave sides as claimed, as taught by McCabe, since it was known in the art that a nozzle can define other shapes and sizes to determine the direction and characteristics of the stream of fluid at a desired flow rate and desired flow pattern and the opening can have desirable cleaning characteristics (¶ 0025). Furthermore, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the shape of the claimed fluid delivery aperture (Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 0064) and the combination above would work appropriately.
Regarding claim 58, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses the fluid applicator has an overall 3-dimensional rectangular shape (¶ 0048) with curved sides (see Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 59, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses a tubular member (200) wherein the tubular member is unidirectional (¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 60, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses the fluid applicator controller fits within a channel (channel of the element between 110 and 200) in the fluid applicator aperture (see Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 62, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses the body further comprises an inlet (inlet connecting to 200) in communication with the tubular member.
Regarding claim 64, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses a dryer (400) operable to deliver air via at least one of the fluid delivery aperture and an air delivery aperture (aperture of 400; ¶ 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 65, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses a power source (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 66, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses a piston valve (111).
Regarding claim 68, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses a heater (500) operable to heat fluid prior to delivery via the fluid delivery aperture (¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 69, the combination above and specifically Lee further discloses the fluid applicator is operable to engage a docking station (600) having a housing (610, 620) with a front surface and a rear surface (front and rear surface of 600).
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101688697; machine translation attached) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Mitry (US 20090121042).
Regarding claim 61, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 27.
Lee further discloses the body further comprises a front piece (110) and a back piece (400); however, Lee does not disclose wherein the front piece and the back piece have a snap-fit arrangement as claimed.
Mitry discloses a hand-held sanitary washer wherein the front piece and the back piece have a snap-fit arrangement (¶ 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connection of Lee, to be a snap-fit arrangement as claimed, as taught by Mitry, since it was known in the art that a snap-on connector can be used to attach tubes together (¶ 0054).
Claim(s) 63 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101688697; machine translation attached) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912) as applied to claim(s) 27 and 65 above, and further in view of Rysak (US 20210246644).
Regarding claim 63, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 27.
However, Lee does not disclose the body further comprises a magnet as claimed.
Rysak discloses a handheld sprayer assembly wherein the body (10) further comprises a magnet (¶ 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the body of Lee, to have a magnet as claimed, as taught by Rysak, since it was known in the art that magnets are used as a fastening means (¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 67, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 65.
However, Lee does not disclose the power source is at least one of a battery and a turbine as claimed.
Rysak discloses a handheld sprayer assembly wherein the power source is at least one of a battery (106) and a turbine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the power source of Lee, to be a battery as claimed, as taught by Rysak, since it was known in the art that a battery may be used to power modules of a spray assembly (¶ 0030).
Claim(s) 70 and 73-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101688697; machine translation attached) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912) as applied to claim(s) 27 and 48 above and further in view of Miller (US 5685028).
Regarding claim 70, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 48.
However, Lee does not disclose the fluid includes one or more of each of a fragrance, a surfactant, a cleaning agent, an antibacterial, a scrubbing agent, an emollient, a prebiotic, and a postbiotic as claimed.
Miller discloses a bidet sprayer unit and apparatus for mounting wherein the fluid includes one or more of each of a fragrance, a surfactant, a cleaning agent (col. 3, ll. 3-27), an antibacterial, a scrubbing agent, an emollient, a prebiotic, and a postbiotic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fluid of Lee, to include a cleaning agent as claimed, as taught by Miller, since it was known in the art to use a bidet device for rinsing and medicating the genital and rectal areas (col. 1, ll. 22-29).
Regarding claim 73, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 27.
However, Lee does not disclose a mixing pod operable to perform a dilution step, wherein a cleaning concentrate is diluted in an interior chamber of the mixing pod as claimed.
Miller discloses a bidet sprayer unit and apparatus for mounting including a mixing pod (24) operable to perform a dilution step (col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27), wherein a cleaning concentrate (col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27) is diluted in an interior chamber (chamber of 24) of the mixing pod (medicinal, cleansing, or deodorant additive is provided in 24, col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bidet device of Lee, to include a mixing pod operable to perform a dilution step, wherein a cleaning concentrate is diluted in an interior chamber of the mixing pod as claimed, as taught by Miller, since it was known in the art to use a bidet device for rinsing and medicating the genital and rectal areas (col. 1, ll. 22-29).
Regarding claim 74, the combination above and specifically Miller further discloses a venturi injector (102) operable to perform a second dilution step (col. 3, ll. 3-27) before delivering fluid to the fluid applicator aperture (aperture of 26).
Regarding claim 75, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 48.
However, Lee does not disclose providing a mixing pod operable to perform a dilution step, performing a first dilution step includes diluting a cleaning concentrate in an interior chamber of the mixing pod, and performing a second dilution step via a venturi injector as claimed.
Miller discloses a bidet sprayer unit and apparatus for mounting including providing a mixing pod (24) operable to perform a dilution step (col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27), performing a first dilution step (col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27) includes diluting a cleaning concentrate (col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27) in an interior chamber (chamber of 24) of the mixing pod (medicinal, cleansing, or deodorant additive is provided in 24, col. 1, ll. 61-63, col. 3, ll. 3-27), and performing a second dilution step (col. 3, ll. 3-27) via a venturi injector (102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bidet device of Lee, to include a mixing pod operable to perform a dilution step, performing a first dilution step includes diluting a cleaning concentrate in an interior chamber of the mixing pod, and performing a second dilution step via a venturi injector claimed, as taught by Miller, since it was known in the art to use a bidet device for rinsing and medicating the genital and rectal areas (col. 1, ll. 22-29).
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani (US 6190366) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912).
Regarding claim 76, Tani discloses a fluid applicator comprising a housing (C, D, h) with a fluid delivery aperture (h) provided on a face (E3) of the housing at a distal end (end near E3), a collapsible reservoir (B1-B2) at a proximal end (end near 8-9) with an interior cavity (cavity of B1-B2) wherein the reservoir is expandable from a flat profile first configuration (folded configuration, col. 2, ll. 11-16) to a v- shaped second configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 3; col. 10, ll. 27-65).
However, Tani does not explicitly disclose a triangular fluid delivery aperture with a plurality of concave sides as claimed.
McCabe discloses a perineal self-cleansing system and method of use including a triangular fluid delivery aperture (50, Fig. 4-10, in particular Fig. 5) with a plurality of concave sides (sides of 50, ¶ 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fluid delivery aperture of Tani, to be a triangular fluid delivery aperture with a plurality of concave sides as claimed, as taught by McCabe, since it was known in the art that a nozzle can define other shapes and sizes to determine the direction and characteristics of the stream of fluid at a desired flow rate and desired flow pattern and the opening can have desirable cleaning characteristics (¶ 0025). Furthermore, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the shape of the claimed fluid delivery aperture (Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 0064) and the combination above would work appropriately.
Claim(s) 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani (US 6190366) in view of McCabe (US 20100306912) as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of Creed (US 20100258140).
Regarding claim 77, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 76.
Tani further discloses the water container is filled with water in a sufficient amount to wash the target part of the body (col. 5, ll. 5-7); however, Tani does not explicitly disclose wherein the reservoir has a fluid capacity of 200mL to 400mL as claimed.
Creed discloses a portable bidet system wherein the reservoir has a fluid capacity of 200mL to 400mL (¶ 0013, 0015, 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the reservoir of Tani, to have a fluid capacity of 200mL to 400mL as claimed, as taught by Creed, since it was known in the art that more or less water may be added to the system (¶ 0013, 0015, 0023).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11AM-5PM.
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 P 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.
WILLIAM R. KLOTZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754