Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/408,977

Hand And Foot Bathing Device

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 10, 2024
Examiner
LE, HUYEN D
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
1333 granted / 1833 resolved
+2.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1833 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford et al. (11,540,672) in view of Bly (6,105,183). Regarding claims 1 and 7, Stafford et al. disclose a hand and foot bathing device (Fig. 38) comprising a bathtub having a perimeter wall and configured to facilitate a user to easily step into the bathtub, the perimeter wall having an entry 1712 which has a height being less than the height of the perimeter wall wherein the entry 1712 is configured to facilitate the user to enter the bathtub without having to step over the perimeter wall; a bench 1754 being mounted to and extending upwardly from top surface of the perimeter wall of the bathtub (Fig. 38, col. 37, lines 42+) wherein the bench 1755 is configured to facilitate the user to sit on the bench to wash their hands and feet and face. However, Stafford et al. do not teach the bench having an adjustable height. Attention is directed Bly which teaches a bench used in a bathtub comprising adjustable legs 10 and 12 for adjusting the height of the bench. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Stafford et al. bench to have adjustable legs in view of Bly reference for adjusting the height of the bench to accommodate the height of a user. Furthermore, Stafford et al. do not teach a perimeter wall having a height not greater than 15.0 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the perimeter wall of Stafford et al. bathtub at a certain height as a matter of routine optimization 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 2, the perimeter wall extends upwardly from a basal wall of the bathtub; the bathtub has a drain (shown in Fig. 63) extending through the basal wall wherein said drain is configured to drain water from said bathtub; said drain is positioned adjacent to a front side of said perimeter wall; said perimeter wall has a top surface; said entry has an upper surface being spaced downwardly from said top surface of said perimeter wall; said entry has a pair of lateral bounding surfaces each extending between said upper surface of said entry and said top surface of said perimeter wall; said entry is positioned on a first lateral side of said perimeter wall; and said entry is positioned closer to said front side of said perimeter wall than a back side of said perimeter wall. Regarding claim 3, Stafford et al. teach the bench 1754 comprises: a seat; said seat has a top surface and a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface wherein said top surface is configured to facilitate the user to sit on said top surface; said seat is elongated between said first lateral surface and said second lateral surface; and said seat is comprised of a fluid impermeable material wherein said seat is configured to resist becoming wet from water; and a plurality of legs; Bly teaches each of the legs has a lower section 14 which slidably receives an upper section such that each of said plurality of legs has a telescopically adjustable height; said upper section of each of said plurality of legs 10 and 12 has a bend being centrally located between a first end and a second end of said upper section of a respective leg thereby defining a first portion forming an angle with a second portion of said upper section of said plurality of legs 10 and 12; said first end is associated with said first portion; said second end is associated with said second portion; said lower section of each of said plurality of legs has a top end being open which insertably receives said first end of said upper section 14 of a respective leg such that said second portion of said upper section of said respective leg is directed laterally away from said lower section of said respective leg; said lower section 14 of each of said plurality of legs 10 and 12 has a bottom end being closed and an outer wall extending between said top end and said bottom end; and said outer wall of said lower section of each of said plurality of legs has a plurality of holes 18 being evenly spaced apart from each other and being distributed between said top end and said bottom end. Regarding claim 4, Stafford et al. teach the plurality of legs includes a pair of first legs and a pair of second legs; said second end of said upper section of each of said pair of first legs is attached to said first lateral surface of said seat; said upper section of each of said pair of first legs is spaced from a respective one of a front surface and a back surface of said seat; said second end of said upper section of each of said pair of second legs is attached to said second lateral surface of said seat; and said upper section of each of said pair of second legs is spaced from a respective one of said front surface and said back surface of said seat. Regarding claim 5, Bly teaches the device includes a plurality of locks 20; each of said plurality of locks 10 is movably integrated into said first portion of said upper section of a respective one of said plurality of legs; each of said plurality of locks 20 is biased to extend outwardly through a respective one of said plurality of holes 18 in said outer wall of said lower section of a respective one of said legs thereby retaining said legs at a desired height; and each of said plurality of locks 20 is urgeable inwardly toward said first portion of said upper section of said respective leg such that said locks 20 are displaced from said respective hole 18 thereby facilitating said first portion of said upper section of said respective leg to be slid upwardly or downwardly in said lower section 14 of said respective leg for adjusting a height of said respective leg. Regarding claim 6, Stafford et al. disclose the bathtub 1713 has a perimeter wall, said perimeter wall having a top surface and a first lateral side and a second lateral side; Bly teaches device includes a plurality of feet 16; each of said plurality of feet 16 has a topmost end being open and a bottommost end being closed; said topmost end of each of said plurality of feet insertably receives said bottom end of said lower section of a respective one of said plurality of legs; said bottommost end of each of said plurality of feet 16 which are attached to a respective one of said pair of first legs is attached to said top surface corresponding to said first lateral side said perimeter wall of said bathtub; and said bottommost end of each of said plurality of feet which are attached to a respective one of said pair of second legs is attached to said top surface corresponding to said second lateral side of said perimeter wall of said bathtub such that said seat is oriented to extend substantially between said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said perimeter wall of said bathtub. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Stafford in view of Bly does not teach a bench is mounted to and extends upwardly from a top surface of the perimeter wall. Examiner disagrees with applicant. Stafford teaches the bathtub 1713 comprising perimeter walls with accessory attachment points 1752 on top, where a bench is mounted to and extending from (see Fig. 38, see col. 19, lines 42+). Having a height of the perimeter wall being not higher than 15.0 cm would have been obvious one of skill in the art as an optimization and routine experimentation. Conclusion 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. /HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601162
CONNECTOR FOR SUPPLY SYSTEM OF A FAUCET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592333
VOICE COIL AND VOICE COIL MOLDING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590467
DRAIN PLUG FOR AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593176
SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR COUPLING A VOICE COIL ASSEMBLY AND DIAGRAPHAM FOR ACOUSTIC TRANSDUCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587779
SPEAKERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1833 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month