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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-4 , 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR200359859 (KR859), the art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E.
In Reference to Claim 1
KR859 discloses a long-handled towel device that allows a user to maintain a comfortable standing position while drying off their legs and feet, the long-handled towel device comprising: an elongated shaft component (Fig. 2, 53) ; a handle component (Fig. 2, 55); and a mildew-resistant component (Fig. 2, 11); wherein the handle component is secured to an end (Fig. 2, at location 51) of the elongated shaft component; and wherein the mildew-resistant component is secured to an opposing end (Fig. 2, at the screw 54) of the elongate shaft component; wherein a bathroom towel (Fig. 4, 40) is secured around the mildew-resistant component during use; and further wherein the bathroom towel is applied to a body and lower extremities to dry a user (The Office consider applied to a body is a function of the towel which is inherent by the recited structure of KR 859).
In Reference to Claim 2
KR859 discloses the elongated shaft (Fig. 2, 53) component extends between a first end (Fig. 2, 51) and a second end (Fig. 2, 54).
In Reference to Claim 3
KR859 discloses the handle component (Fig. 3, 55) is secured to the second end (Fig. 2, 51) of the elongated shaft component.
In Reference to Claim 4
KR859 discloses the mildew-resistant component (Fig. 3, 11) is secured to the first end (Fig. 3, 54) of the elongated shaft component.
In Reference to Claim 12
KR859 discloses the mildew-resistant component is a flat, oval-shaped component and the bathroom towel is shaped as a pocket which is placed over the mildew-resistant component and secured via a drawstring and toggles. (As showed in Fig. 2, the towel 10 is secured by string 41)
In Reference to Claim 13
KR859 discloses the bathroom towel (Fig. 2, 40) is removable and washable (The Office considers that removable and washable is the functional limitation).
In Reference to Claim 20
KR859 discloses A method of drying a user’s lower extremities and legs while maintaining a comfortable standing position, the method comprising the following steps: providing a long-handled towel device comprising an elongated shaft (Fig. 2, 53) component with a mildew-resistant component (Fig. 2, 11) on one end and a handle component (Fig. 2, 55) on the other end; securing a bathroom towel to the mildew-resistant component; utilizing the bathroom towel (Fig. 2, 40) to dry a user’s lower extremities and legs while comfortably standing; and removing (As showed in Fig. 2, the towel 40 is removable) the bathroom towel from the mildew-resistant component and washing the bathroom towel after use.
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 5-8, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR859 in view of US Patent 8,789,232 to Sullivan.
In Reference to Claim 5
KR859 discloses the elongated shaft component.
KR859 does not teach a slightly curved shaft.
Sullivan teaches the elongated shaft component is slightly curved, such that a user can reach their back when in use (As showed in Fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Sullivan into the design of KR859. Doing so, would result in a curved shaft being applied to the design of KR859. Both inventions of KR859 and Sullivan are in the same field of endeavor, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Reference to Claim 6
KR859 discloses the handle component (Fig. 2, 55) is secured to the second end (Fig. 2, 51) and extends outward (As showed in Fig. 2) from the elongated shaft component.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 8
KR859 discloses the handle (Fig. 2, 55)
KR859 does not teach the detail of the handle.
Sullivan teaches the handle component comprises an ergonomical grip. (As showed in Fig. 1, the handle has a wide curved shape)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Sullivan into the design of KR859. Doing so, would result in ergonomical grip being applied to the design of KR859. Both inventions of KR859 and Sullivan are in the same field of endeavor, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The Office considers that “allow a user to more easily reach their back and hip area.” is a function of the recited structure. Since the combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 8 teaches the recited structure, the function is inherent.
In Reference to Claim 14
KR859 discloses a long-handled towel device that allows a user to maintain a comfortable standing position while drying off their legs and feet, the long-handled towel device comprising: an elongated shaft (Fig. 1, 53) component comprising a first end (Fig. 1, 54) and a second end (Fig. 1, 51); a handle (Fig. 1, 55) component, secured to the second end; and a mildew-resistant component shaped like a flat, oval-shaped component (Fig. 2, 11), which is secured to the first end; wherein the elongated shaft component is slightly curved, such that a user can reach their back when in use; wherein a bathroom towel (Fig. 2, 40) is manufactured as a pocket (as showed in Fig. 2) with an opening at one end; wherein the opening is placed over the mildew-resistant component; wherein the bathroom towel is secured around the mildew-resistant component via a drawstring and toggles (Fig. 2, 41); wherein the bathroom towel is removable and washable; and further wherein the bathroom towel is applied to a body and lower extremities to dry a user.(The Office considers that removable and washable and applied to a body are function of the recited structure which are inherent by the recited structure)
KR859 does not teach a handle component with an ergonomical grip
Sullivan teaches the handle component comprises an ergonomical grip. (As showed in Fig. 1, the handle has a wide curved shape)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Sullivan into the design of KR859. Doing so, would result in ergonomical grip being applied to the design of KR859. Both inventions of KR859 and Sullivan are in the same field of endeavor, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Reference to Claim 15
KR859 discloses a plurality of indicia. ((Fig. 2, holes 52, 51)
In Reference to Claim 17
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 14 teaches the oval shaped mildew-resistant component.
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 14 does not teach a L shaped component. According to MPEP: , the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The Office considers that the L shaped component is merely a design variable.
In Reference to Claim 18
KR859 discloses the first end and the second end may (The Office considers that “may” is a design option, and the limitation follow “may” is not a must structure) provide protrusions with external threading (As showed in Fig. 2, 54) for removably attaching to the mildew-resistant component and the handle component.
In Reference to Claim 19
KR859 discloses the mildew-resistant component and the handle component comprise cavities with internal threading (Fig. 2, 12) for operatively receiving and engaging the protrusions and external threading (Fig. 2, 54), respectively.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,205,012 to Coley.
In Reference to Claim 9
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 7 teaches a hole in the grip.
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 7 does not teach the string.
Coley teaches a string (Fig. 1, 3) attached to a hole.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Coley into the combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 8. Doing so, would result in a string attached to the hole. Both inventions of Coley and KR859 are in the same field of endeavor. Coley teaches a handle design which is shaped to be conveniently graspable by the hand of the user and incorporates a hole which receives a loop by which the tool may be suspended from any wall hook.
In Reference to Claim 10
KR859 discloses the elongated shaft component can be telescoping. (Fig. 2, 51 /52) (Since there are multiple connections positions, therefore, the shaft can be telescoping)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR859 in view of US Patent 2,262,888 to Dodge.
In Reference to Claim 11
KR859 discloses the mildew resistant component (Fig.2, 11).
KR859 does not teach a set of parallel arms.
Doge teaches the mildew-resistant component is a U-shaped component (Fig. 1, 17) which would comprise a set of parallel arms (As showed in Fig. 1, 17) connected by a base component to form the U-shaped component and the bathroom towel is secured via hook and loop fasteners to the U-shaped component.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Dodge into the design of KR859. Doing so, would result in U shaped mildew-resistant component being applied to the design of KR859. Both inventions of KR859 and Sullivan are in the same field of endeavor, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Coley.
In Reference to Claim 16
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 14 teaches a hole in the grip.
The combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 14 does not teach the string.
Coley teaches a string (Fig. 1, 3) attached to a hole.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Coley into the combination of KR859 and Sullivan as applied to Claim 8. Doing so, would result in a string attached to the hole. Both inventions of Coley and KR859 are in the same field of endeavor. Coley teaches a handle design which is shaped to be conveniently graspable by the hand of the user and incorporates a hole which receives a loop by which the tool may be suspended from any wall hook.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 12/10/25