DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed 1/15/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 1-12 and 14-19 have been noted in addition to canceled Claim 13 and new Claim 21. The amendment has failed to overcome the specification objections previously set forth - those specification objections accordingly remain. The amendment has overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, the 1st sentence, change “above a housing of that contains” to -- above a housing that contains --
It is recommended that Applicant review the specification in its entirety to ensure that no other issues are present.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 4, change “the sauna room” to -- a sauna room --
In Claim 16, add proper antecedent basis for all claim elements. For example, change “the air heated” to -- air heated --, change “the discharge opening” to -- a discharge opening --, change “the bed of stones” to -- a bed of stones --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a heating device” (Claims 1 and 16)
“a flow alignment component is arranged at the outlet opening and is configured such that a direction of flow of the air is adjustable” (Claim 1)
“a liquid distribution means” (Claim 14)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a heating device” (from Claims 1 and 16), given at least [0026], is being interpreted as a device comprising heating elements (e.g., electric heating elements) capable of heating a bed of stones, and equivalents thereof
“a flow alignment component is arranged at the outlet opening and is configured such that a direction of flow of the air is adjustable” (from Claim 1), given at least [0012], is being interpreted as a component comprising horizontal louvers and vertical louvers, and equivalents thereof
“a liquid distribution means” (from Claim 14), given at least [0025], is being interpreted as a combination of a spray plate and a liquid opening, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skogland et al. (US 3,348,021) (hereinafter “Skogland”) in view of Murase (JP 2008307115 A) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Skogland teaches of a sauna stove (Fig. 2) including a device which is configured to distribute air heated by the sauna stove above a housing of the sauna stove (housing of (40) comprising (at least) elements (33), (36) and (14) as shown in Figs. 2-3), which contains a heating device of the sauna stove (heating device comprising elements 42, 43, 44), in a targeted manner in a sauna room (the room in which the sauna is disposed within as shown in Fig. 3) and includes at least one fan (41) (see at least Col. 3 lines 6-15, Col. 3 lines 50-72 and Figs. 1-4), the device comprising:
an air duct (air duct between elements (33), (36) and (29), (35)) with at least one inlet opening (55) below the housing (as is shown in Fig. 2) and at least one outlet opening (27) above a discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Fig. 2),
wherein the air heated by the heating device exits the housing through the discharge opening (see at least Col. 3 lines 6-15 and Fig. 3),
wherein the air duct and the fan are configured such that the fan draws air into the at least one inlet opening, then transports the air upwards in the air duct along the sauna stove to the at least one outlet opening (27), and blows the air out of the at least one outlet opening (27) above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) of the sauna stove (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-74 and Figs. 1-4), and
wherein the device is attached to a first outer wall of the housing (the device is attached to at least first outer wall (14) of the housing via at least element (11)) (see at least Col. 3 lines 6-15 and Figs. 2-4), the first outer wall (14) including the discharge opening (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) from which the air heated by the heating device exits from the housing (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-74 and Figs. 1-4).
Skogland fails to explicitly teach of a flow alignment component that is arranged at the outlet opening and is configured such that a direction of flow of the air is adjustable.
Murase discloses a relatable sauna device (3) (see Fig. 12) that has an outlet opening (10) for heated air (see at least Abstract, [0041] and Figs. 1-2, 4 and 12-13). Murase teaches of a flow alignment component (15), comprising horizontal louvers (20, 21) and vertical louvers (23), that is arranged at the outlet opening and is configured such that a direction of flow of the air is adjustable (see at least [0047]-[0049], [0077] and Figs. 1-2, 4 and 12-13). Murase teaches that the flow alignment component provides the advantage of, inter alia, enabling a user to “freely change the direction of the air blown out” (see at least [0041]-[0042] and Figs. 1-2, 4 and 12-13).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Skogland by arranging a flow alignment component at the existing outlet opening of the device such that a direction of flow of the air would be adjustable as is taught by Murase. Doing so would have enabled a user of the device to freely change the direction of air flow as desired. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: In the combination of Skogland and Murase, the outlet opening (27) as is taught by Skogland and the flow therefrom is horizontally arranged (as is shown in Figs. 2-3 of Skogland). The implementation of the flow alignment component taught by Murase would provide means to adjust that existing horizontal outlet and flow therefrom wherein the direction of flow would necessarily always have a horizontal component leading from the outlet opening via the discharge opening of the housing taught by Skogland into the sauna room as claimed (see at least Figs. 2-3 of Skogland, Fig. 13 of Murase and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Skogland and Murase would have necessarily resulted in the invention of Claim 2 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Skogland also teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Skogland (and Murase) fails to explicitly teach that the at least one outlet opening is arranged at a height of 2 to 20 cm above the discharge opening of the housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing to be 2 to 20 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, “The lower grille 28 is adjacent to the stone tray 15 and allows air to circulate into the tray 15 to heat up any stones placed therein” (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3). Thus, a relatively lower height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing will permit more air to enter stones in the stone tray to further heat the stones while a relatively larger height will allow more air to bypass the stones and directly enter the sauna room (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing, depending on the amount of additional stone heating desired, to arrive at a height of between 2 to 20 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 3 (see the rejection for Claim 3) and Skogland also teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Skogland (and Murase) fails to explicitly teach that the at least one outlet opening is arranged at a height of 4 to 10 cm above the discharge opening of the housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing to be 4 to 10 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening comprising elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, “The lower grille 28 is adjacent to the stone tray 15 and allows air to circulate into the tray 15 to heat up any stones placed therein” (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3). Thus, a relatively lower height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing will permit more air to enter stones in the stone tray to further heat the stones while a relatively larger height will allow more air to bypass the stones and directly enter the sauna room (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing, depending on the amount of additional stone heating desired, to arrive at a height of between 4 to 10 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 4 (see the rejection for Claim 4) and Skogland also teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Skogland (and Murase) fails to explicitly teach that the at least one outlet opening is arranged at a height of 6 to 9 cm above the discharge opening of the housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing to be 6 to 9 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches that the at least one outlet opening (27) is arranged at a height above the discharge opening of the housing (discharge opening comprising elements (28) and (15)) (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, “The lower grille 28 is adjacent to the stone tray 15 and allows air to circulate into the tray 15 to heat up any stones placed therein” (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3). Thus, a relatively lower height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing will permit more air to enter stones in the stone tray to further heat the stones while a relatively larger height will allow more air to bypass the stones and directly enter the sauna room (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-45 and Figs. 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing height between the at least one outlet opening and the discharge opening of the housing, depending on the amount of additional stone heating desired, to arrive at a height of between 6 to 9 cm as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is between 50 and 150 m3/h (Note that the limitation “the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is between 50 and 150 m3/h” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing volume flow of air through the air duct that the device is capable of providing to be between 50 and 150 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches of a fan (41) that is capable of facilitating a volume flow of air to flow through the air duct (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the volume flow of air that flows through the air duct is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, the fan “located at the bottom of the heating chambers 34, 40 causes air to be circulated through the chambers 34, 40 and to discharge through the outlet opening 23 into the room in which the heater 10 is operated” (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2). Since the fan affects the air speed flowing through the heating chambers, a relatively lower flow rate will cause more residence time of air in the heating chambers and in turn a higher degree of air heating a vice-versa. Thus, changing the flow rate via the fan will influence the temperature of air emitted from the outlet (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the volume flow of air through the air duct via the existing fan, depending on the air outlet temperature desired, to arrive at a volume flow of air through the air duct that is between 50 and 150 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 6 (see the rejection for Claim 6) but fail to explicitly teach that the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is between 80 to 120 m3/h (Note that the limitation “the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is between 80 to 120 m3/h” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing volume flow of air through the air duct that the device is capable of providing to be between 80 to 120 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches of a fan (41) that is capable of facilitating a volume flow of air to flow through the air duct (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the volume flow of air that flows through the air duct is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, the fan “located at the bottom of the heating chambers 34, 40 causes air to be circulated through the chambers 34, 40 and to discharge through the outlet opening 23 into the room in which the heater 10 is operated” (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2). Since the fan affects the air speed flowing through the heating chambers, a relatively lower flow rate will cause more residence time of air in the heating chambers and in turn a higher degree of air heating a vice-versa. Thus, changing the flow rate via the fan will influence the temperature of air emitted from the outlet (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the volume flow of air through the air duct via the existing fan, depending on the air outlet temperature desired, to arrive at a volume flow of air through the air duct that is between 80 to 120 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 7 (see the rejection for Claim 7) but fail to explicitly teach that the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is approximately 100 m3/h (Note that the limitation “the device is configured such that a volume flow of the air through the air duct is between approximately 100 m3/h” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing volume flow of air through the air duct that the device is capable of providing to be approximately 100 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Skogland teaches of a fan (41) that is capable of facilitating a volume flow of air to flow through the air duct (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the volume flow of air that flows through the air duct is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined device. As is disclosed by Skogland, the fan “located at the bottom of the heating chambers 34, 40 causes air to be circulated through the chambers 34, 40 and to discharge through the outlet opening 23 into the room in which the heater 10 is operated” (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2). Since the fan affects the air speed flowing through the heating chambers, a relatively lower flow rate will cause more residence time of air in the heating chambers and in turn a higher degree of air heating a vice-versa. Thus, changing the flow rate via the fan will influence the temperature of air emitted from the outlet (see at least Col. 5 lines 64-68 and Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the volume flow of air through the air duct via the existing fan, depending on the air outlet temperature desired, to arrive at a volume flow of air through the air duct that is approximately 100 m3/h as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 21, Skogland also teaches of a bed of stones arranged in the discharge opening (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) (see at least Col. 3 lines 6-15 and Fig. 3 - “stone tray 15 in which stones may be placed if desired”).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skogland and Murase further in view of Hayashi et al. (JP H0886482 A) (hereinafter “Hayashi”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 9, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the device includes two outlet openings with one flow alignment component each, wherein the directions of flow from the two outlet openings through the respective flow alignment components are each adjustable independently.
Hayashi discloses a relatable device (1) that blows air onto a user (see at least Abstract and Fig. 2) that comprises at least two outlet openings (14) for air to exit (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11). Hayashi teaches that each outlet opening comprises one flow alignment component (34) each (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11), wherein each flow alignment component comprises horizontal louvers (35) and vertical louvers (36) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11), wherein the directions of flow from the at least two outlet openings through the respective flow alignment components are each adjustable independently (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11) and wherein both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow are adjustable (as is shown in Figs. 10-11) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11). Hayashi teaches that the arrangement of individual alignment components of this type that each allow vertical and horizontal flow adjustment in at least two outlet openings is advantageous because, inter alia, it provides increased air flow adjustability out of a plurality of different outlets in both horizontal and vertical directions to better direct air flow for the user (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing outlet opening to be at least two outlet openings that each comprise their own flow alignment component, wherein each flow alignment component is adjustable independently and wherein both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow of each flow alignment component could be adjusted by the user as is taught by Hayashi. Doing so would have provided increased air flow adjustability out of a plurality of different outlets in both horizontal and vertical directions to better direct air flow for the user. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the device including two outlet openings with one flow alignment component each, wherein the directions of flow from the two outlet openings through the respective flow alignment components would each be adjustable independently as claimed. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Skogland and Murase teach the device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the flow alignment component is designed such that both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow are adjustable.
Hayashi discloses a relatable device (1) that blows air onto a user (see at least Abstract and Fig. 2) that comprises at least two outlet openings (14) for air to exit (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11). Hayashi teaches that each outlet opening comprises one flow alignment component (34) each (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11), wherein each flow alignment component comprises horizontal louvers (35) and vertical louvers (36) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11), wherein the directions of flow from the at least two outlet openings through the respective flow alignment components are each adjustable independently (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11) and wherein both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow are adjustable (as is shown in Figs. 10-11) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11). Hayashi teaches that the arrangement of individual alignment components of this type that each allow vertical and horizontal flow adjustment in at least two outlet openings is advantageous because, inter alia, it provides increased air flow adjustability out of a plurality of different outlets in both horizontal and vertical directions to better direct air flow for the user (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing outlet opening to be at least two outlet openings that each comprise their own flow alignment component, wherein each flow alignment component is adjustable independently and wherein both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow of each flow alignment component could be adjusted by the user as is taught by Hayashi. Doing so would have provided increased air flow adjustability out of a plurality of different outlets in both horizontal and vertical directions to better direct air flow for the user. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the flow alignment component being designed such that both a vertical and a horizontal component of the direction of flow are adjustable as claimed. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi also teaches that the flow alignment component (34) that would be used in the combined device includes horizontal louvers (35) and vertical louvers (36) which are mounted to be movable with respect to each other and with respect to the outlet opening (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6, Figs. 1-3, 10, 11 and the rejection for Claim 10 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayashi also teaches that the flow alignment component (34) that would be used in the combined device includes two horizontal louvers (35) arranged one upon the other in parallel which are rigidly connected with each other at their longitudinal ends and are mounted to be rotatable about an axis of rotation parallel to a longitudinal orientation of the horizontal louvers in the outlet opening (14) (as is shown in Figs. 10-11) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11), wherein the flow alignment component (34) has at least two vertical louvers (36) which are mounted between the horizontal louvers in a swiveling manner and are connected to each other in such a way that, by adjusting one vertical louver, the other vertical louvers are aligned (as is shown in Figs. 10-11) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 5 - the top half of pg. 6 and Figs. 1-3, 10, 11).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skogland and Murase further in view of Gabele (DE 102020124278 A1) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 14, Skogland and Murase teach the sauna stove according to Claim 13 (see the rejection for Claim 13) and Skogland also teaches of a bed of stones (stones in “stone tray 15” as shown in Fig. 3) which is arranged in the discharge opening (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 10-15 and Fig. 3).
Skogland (and Murase) fails to explicitly teach of an automatic infusion device which includes a reservoir, a pump and a liquid distribution means which are configured such that liquid from the reservoir is distributed onto the bed of stones by means of the pump and the liquid distribution means.
Gabele discloses a relatable sauna (Fig. 1) that comprises an automatic infusion device which includes a reservoir (13), a pump (14) and a liquid distribution means (16) (note that element (16) performs the function of liquid distribution and is accordingly a structural equivalent to a liquid distribution means comprising a spray plate and a liquid opening) which are configured such that liquid from the reservoir is distributed onto a bed of stones (3) by means of the pump and the liquid distribution means (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0028]-[0029] and Fig. 1). Gabele also teaches of a voice control (“voice control”) by which the pump can be actuated, wherein an amount of distributed liquid is adjustable by means of the voice control, and wherein the sauna itself can also be actuated by voice control (see at least [0018], [0029] and Fig. 1). Gabele teaches that such configuration is advantageous because, inter alia, it enables the sauna user to “comfortably and easily” control the sauna and the amount of liquid distributed onto the bed of stones (see at least [0018], [0029] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the device to include an automatic infusion device which includes a reservoir, a pump and a liquid distribution means which are configured such that liquid from the reservoir is distributed onto the bed of stones by means of the pump and the liquid distribution means in addition to a voice control by which the pump can be actuated, wherein an amount of distributed liquid is adjustable by means of the voice control, and wherein the sauna itself can also be actuated by voice control as is taught by Gabele. Doing so would have enabled the sauna user to comfortably and easily control the sauna and the amount of liquid distributed onto the bed of stones. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Skogland and Murase teach the sauna stove according to Claim 13 (see the rejection for Claim 13) and Skogland also teaches of a bed of stones (stones in “stone tray 15” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least Col. 3 lines 10-15 and Fig. 3).
Skogland (and Murase) fails to explicitly teach of a voice control by which a pump can be actuated, wherein an amount of distributed liquid is adjustable by means of the voice control, and wherein the device can also be actuated by voice control.
Gabele discloses a relatable sauna (Fig. 1) that comprises an automatic infusion device which includes a reservoir (13), a pump (14) and a liquid distribution means (16) (note that element (16) performs the function of liquid distribution and is accordingly a structural equivalent to a liquid distribution means comprising a spray plate and a liquid opening) which are configured such that liquid from the reservoir is distributed onto a bed of stones (3) by means of the pump and the liquid distribution means (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0028]-[0029] and Fig. 1). Gabele also teaches of a voice control (“voice control”) by which the pump can be actuated, wherein an amount of distributed liquid is adjustable by means of the voice control, and wherein the sauna itself can also be actuated by voice control (see at least [0018], [0029] and Fig. 1). Gabele teaches that such configuration is advantageous because, inter alia, it enables the sauna user to “comfortably and easily” control the sauna and the amount of liquid distributed onto the bed of stones (see at least [0018], [0029] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the device to include an automatic infusion device which includes a reservoir, a pump and a liquid distribution means which are configured such that liquid from the reservoir is distributed onto the bed of stones by means of the pump and the liquid distribution means in addition to a voice control by which the pump can be actuated, wherein an amount of distributed liquid is adjustable by means of the voice control, and wherein the sauna itself can also be actuated by voice control as is taught by Gabele. Doing so would have enabled the sauna user to comfortably and easily control the sauna and the amount of liquid distributed onto the bed of stones. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 16-20 are objected to. Independent Claim 16 and dependent Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 16: The subject matter of Claim 16 was previously indicated as being allowable in the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/20/2025. It is noted that Claim 16 has been converted from a dependent claim into an independent claim. While Claim 16 is now in a broader form than it previously was, by no longer depending on Claim 13 and in turn Claim 1, the subject matter of Claim 16 is still considered to be allowable over the known prior art for the same reasons. Namely, because Claim 16 specifies, inter alia, that the liquid distribution means includes a spray plate and a liquid opening, wherein the liquid opening is arranged below the spray plate, surrounded by the bed of stones, such that liquid from the liquid opening is sprayable against the spray plate from below, and wherein the liquid opening is oriented such that the liquid exits from the liquid opening vertically upwards. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of the Skogland, Murase and Gabele prior art references. While Gabele teaches of liquid distribution mean (16) with a liquid opening (see Fig. 1), the liquid distribution mean (16) taught by Gabele opens horizontally (as is shown in Fig. 1) and is accordingly not “arranged below the spray plate, surrounded by the bed of stones, such that liquid from the liquid opening is sprayable against the spray plate from below” such that liquid exits from the liquid opening vertically upwards as is claimed and no motivation would have existed to have reconfigured the working arrangement taught by Gabele (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the totality of the structural arrangement claimed in Claim 16. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 16 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 16 is objected to for several informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Note that Claims 17-20 depend on Claim 16 and are accordingly also considered to have allowable subject matter for their dependency on Claim 16. However, Claims 17-20 also include the claim objection issues of Claim 16 (by depending on Claim 16) and are therefore also not in condition for allowance at this time.
Response to Arguments
9. The arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art of Skogland and Murase and contends that:
“Skogland, in addition to not teaching or suggesting the claimed flow alignment component arranged at the outlet opening, as acknowledged by the Examiner, fails to teach or suggest a device, as claimed, attached to an outer wall of a housing of the sauna stove, which contains a heating device of the sauna stove. Rather, the entirety of the device of Skogland, including the air ducts between elements 33, 36, and 29, 35, as interpreted by the Examiner, are contained inside the housing (case 11) as an integrated system. Nowhere is there a teaching or suggestion for providing a device, as claimed, with the device attached to an outer wall of the case 11. To suggest otherwise would require misinterpreting the express teachings of Skogland.
The remaining applied references fail to make up for the shortcomings discussed above for Skogland. The only teachings for Applicant's claimed structure is within Applicant's disclosure, and thus, to arrive at the presently claimed arrangement would require use of improper hindsight in direct view of Applicant's disclosure.
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to define patentable subject matter and to be in proper form for allowance. Such action is respectfully requested.
The remaining claims ultimately dependent on claim 1 are believed to define patentable subject matter for at least the same reasons and to be in proper form for allowance. Such action is respectfully requested.”
These arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1, as amended, is still too broad to overcome the prior art combination of Skogland and Murase (as is presented above in this Office Action). In the instant case, Skogland does teach that the device is attached to a first outer wall of the housing (the device is attached to at least wall first outer wall (14) of the housing via at least element (11)) (see at least Col. 3 lines 6-15 and Figs. 2-4), the first outer wall (14) including the discharge opening (discharge opening formed by (at least) elements (28) and (15)) from which the air heated by the heating device exits from the housing (as is shown in Fig. 2) as is now claimed (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-74, Figs. 1-4 and the 103 rejection for Claim 1 above in this Office Action). Note that the “outer wall” being relied upon in the rejection is element (14) as taught by Skogland as opposed to element (11) which Applicant’s arguments are based upon (see at least Col. 3 lines 39-74, Figs. 1-4 and the 103 rejection for Claim 1). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to include (at least) structural elements from Claim 16 to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Amendt (US 2012/0304374 A1)
Fuji et al. (US 2008/0157410 A1)
Vanne et al. (US 3,110,797)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 5/21/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights