DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 10/24/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
In claim 15, insert –pack-- after battery.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 108497969) in view of Watson (US 9,826,863), Powell (EP 1719923), and Wang et al. (CN 115300252 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a bathing chair (1) comprising: a base having a leg (see fig. 1), a seat attached to the base (see horizontal seat portion attached to leg, fig. 1), a back plate (abstract) comprising a brush housing (see annotated figure below, brush housing defined by cutout in back plate, shown in heavy line), a brush (supply brush 5, massage rollers 6, belt 4, collectively) which is configured to spin 360 degrees relative to a y-axis of the brush housing (note that as no reference point from which to define x, y, or z-axes has been defined, the y-axis is the defined in the axial direction of the axles 2, 3, that is, into the page, with at least 4 making 360 degree rotation about them)(note that the claim does not require a circular orbit/rotation), and a motor (machine translation previously of record, final paragraph).
Yang does not show a battery pack. Watson teaches that it is conventional in the art to provide power to a motorized back scrubber using a battery pack (52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a battery pack in the device of Yang to provide power to the motor.
Yang does not provide that the legs are telescoping with angle adjustable feet. Attention is turned to Powell which teaches that it is known to provide different varieties of chairs (para. [0001]) with telescopically adjustable legs (abstract, title) having an angle adjustable foot (20)( see fig. 1, ball joint enables angular adjustment as shown in phantom). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an angle adjustable foot and leg like that taught by Powell in the chair of Yang so that that chair can be adjusted to a height which is convenient to a particular user while also being usable on uneven surfaces.
Yang does not show that the seat comprises a telescoping handrail securable to a plurality of different heights via a rail locking member. Wang teaches a bathroom/shower chair (1) having a telescoping hand rail (201) adjustable to a plurality of heights (along track 202), and securable via a locking member (204)(see machine translation, p. 4, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the handrail and lock of Wang on the chair of Yang to allow for a user to be laterally supported by the arm rests, while also enabling height adjustment depending on the requirements of the user or care giver.
Regarding claims 3-4, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further provides a reservoir (51) and a nozzle (52).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Watson, Powell and Wang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Jackson (US 10,201,253).
Regarding claim 2, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a pump. Attention is turned to Jackson which teaches a similar back cleaning assembly having a soap dispenser operated by a pump (78, 76). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a pump operated soap dispenser to the device of Yang in order to provide targeted and controlled application of the soap to the brush.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Watson, Powell, and Wang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Huelke (US 5,903,935).
Regarding claim 6, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the seat attaches to the base via a track enabling left/right movement. Attention is turned to Huelke which teaches a similar bath chair having a track (72)(fig. 3) which attaches the chair to the base (30) and enables left/right movement relative to the base (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the track and base system of Huelke to the device of Yang in order to provide a transfer means that enables a user to maintain a seated position into and out of the tub or shower.
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified by Huelke shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the seat attaches to the track by a rotation point (73) enabling 360-degree rotation relative to the a vertical of the base (see fig. 3 and note that there is no structure which limits the rotation of 74 relative to 34).
Regarding claim 8, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and Huelke further shows a seat belt (120). It would have been obvious to have provided a seat belt in the device of Yang as modified to increase user safety.
Claims 10 - 12 and 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Watson, Powell, Huelke, and Pan (CN 110946484).
Regarding claims 10 - 12 and 15, Yang discloses a bathing chair (1) comprising: a base having a plurality of legs (see fig. 1), each leg having a foot (the terminal end of the leg is considered a foot), a seat attached to the base (see horizontal seat portion attached to leg, fig. 1), a back plate (abstract) comprising a brush housing (see annotated figure above), a brush (massage rollers 6, belt 4, collectively) which is configured to spin 360 degrees relative to a y-axis of the brush housing (note that as no reference point from which to define x, y, or z-axes has been defined, the y-axis is the defined in the axial direction of the axles 2, 3, that is, into the page, with at least 4 making 360 degree rotation about them)(note that the claim does not require a circular orbit/rotation),and a motor (see attached machine translation, final paragraph).
Yang is silent as to the particulars of the legs, the feet, and the attachment of the back. Attention is turned to Huelke which teaches a similar shower chair having a seat back (94) which detachably attaches to the base (20) via a support bar (86, 88), the pieces being telescopic and having a locking member (col. 6, ln. 9-14)(as per claims 11 and 12). Huelke also teaches that it is known to provide 4 legs (20), each having a non-slip foot (24). It would have been obvious to have provided adjustability and detachability to the back of Yang as taught by Huelke to make the bath chair more functional for users of different sizes. It would have been obvious to provide a non-slip foot for stability in a shower environment. It would have been obvious to provide 4 legs since this is common in the chair and seat arts and enables even distribution of a user’s weight. Yang as modified by Huelke does not provide that foot is angle adjustable. Powell which teaches that it is known to provide different varieties of chairs (para. [0001]) with legs having an angle adjustable foot (20)( see fig. 1, ball joint enables angular adjustment as shown in phantom). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have made the foot of modified Yang angle adjustable like that taught by Powell in the chair of modified Yang so that that chair can be used on uneven surfaces.
Yang does not show a battery pack. Watson teaches that it is conventional in the art to provide power to a motorized back scrubber using a battery pack (52) which is detachable from the housing(col. 4,ln. 62-66)(as per claim 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a battery pack in the device of Yang to provide power to the motor. Yang as modified by Watson does not show that the battery pack as a waterproof charging port. Pan teaches that it is common to include a cover (501/505) over a charging port (503/504) in order to provide a rechargeable battery that is usable in a wet environment (machine translation, p. 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the battery of the combined device of Yang and Watson so that the battery can be charged in situ, and the port protected when not in use.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and Yang further provides that the back plate has a housing (51)(fig. 3) and also has a drainage hole (52).
Claims 13 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Watson, Powell, Huelke, and Pan, as applied to claim 10, in view of Xiang et al. (CN 111789516 hereinafter Xiang).
Regarding claims 13 – 14, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that a fastener on the back plate is a suction cup. Attention is turned to Xiang which teaches a similar scrubbing chair having a back plate (1) and a plurality of suction cup fasteners (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided suction cup fasteners on the back of the chair of Yang in order to provide added stability by enabling the chair to be attached to a wall surface while in use.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Watson, Huelke, Powell, KR 200446499 (hereinafter KR ‘499), and Wang.
Regarding claim 18, Yang shows a method of using a bathing chair device comprising the steps of providing a bathing chair device having a base having a leg (see fig. 1), a seat attached to the base (see horizontal seat portion attached to leg, fig. 1), a back plate (abstract) comprising a brush housing (see annotated figure above, brush housing defined by cutout in back plate, shown in heavy line), a brush (massage rollers 6, belt 4, collectively) which is configured to spin 360 degrees relative to a y-axis of the brush housing (note that as no reference point from which to define x, y, or z-axes has been defined, the y-axis is the defined in the axial direction of the axles 2, 3, that is, into the page, with at least 4 making 360 degree rotation about them)(note that the claim does not require a circular orbit/rotation), and a motor (machine translation previously of record, final paragraph), placing the bathing chair device within a bathing area (intended use, note that any area in which the bathing chair device is installed is a ‘bathing area’); sitting on the seat, and using the device, the motor spinning the brushes.
Yang does not show a battery pack or the step of pressing a button to activate the motor to spin the brush. Watson teaches that it is conventional in the art to provide power to a motorized back scrubber using a battery pack (52) which provides control to a motor (50), where the motor is activated by a push button (54)(col. 4, ln. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a battery pack in the device of Yang to provide power to the motor and a push button for easy activation. .
Yang does not show that there are 4 telescoping legs with a non-slip foot. Attention is turned to Huelke which teaches a similar shower chair having 4 telescoping legs (20)(25), each having a non-slip foot (24). It would have been obvious to provide a non-slip foot for stability in a shower environment. It would have been obvious to provide 4 legs since this is common in the chair and seat arts and enables even distribution of a user’s weight. Yang as modified by Huelke does not provide that foot is angle adjustable. Powell which teaches that it is known to provide different varieties of chairs (para. [0001]) with legs having an angle adjustable foot (20)( see fig. 1, ball joint enables angular adjustment as shown in phantom). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a angle adjustable foot like that taught by Powell in the chair of Yang so that that chair can be used on uneven surfaces.
Yang does not show a lit handrail. KR ‘449 teaches that it is known to illuminate a handle/rail (63, 65) in a bathing chair (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a handrail with a light in the device of Yang in order to provide a means for support which is clearly indicated. Yang as modified by KR ‘499 does not show that the handrail is telescoping and securable at a plurality of different heights via a rail locking member. Wang teaches a bathroom/shower chair (1) having a telescoping hand rail (201) adjustable to a plurality of heights (along track 202), and securable via a locking member (204)(see machine translation, p. 4, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the handrail and lock of Wang on the chair of Yang as modified to allow for a user to be laterally supported by the arm rests, while also enabling height adjustment depending on the requirements of the user or care giver.
Regarding claim 19, Yang as modified does not show that the back plate detachably attaches to the base. Attention is again turned to Huelke which teaches a that the seat back (94) detachably attaches to the base (20) via a support bar (86, 88), the pieces being telescopic and having a locking member (col. 6, ln. 9-14) It would have been obvious to have provided adjustability and detachability to the back of Yang as taught by Huelke to make the bath chair more functional for users of different sizes.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Watson, Huelke, Powell, KR ‘499, and Wang, as applied to claim 19, in view of Xiang.
Regarding clam 20, Yang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a step of fastening the back plate to a surface with a fastener. Attention is turned to Xiang which teaches a similar scrubbing chair having a back plate (1) and a plurality of suction cup fasteners (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided suction cup fasteners on the back of the chair of Yang in order to provide added stability by enabling the chair to be attached to a wall surface while in use. The step as claimed are performed by the normal use of the combined device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. With respect to the main amendment that the brushes do not rotate about a y-axis, applicant is referred to the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754