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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sappenfield et al. (2007/0050903) in view of Farber (11,821,195).
Sappenfield et al. discloses a sauna room for home, the sauna room comprising: a floor plate 22 with a heating unit 30 installed; a plurality of walls 50, 52, 54, 56 built on the floor plate 22; and an upper plate 26 installed on an upper portion of the walls 50, 52, 54, 56 wherein the wall 50 (or 52, 54, 56) comprises a hollow panel with an insulating space formed therein, and the hollow panel comprises a first support plate 58 (outer) and a second (inner) support plate 60 spaced apart to face each other (Fig. 8). However, Sappenfield does not disclose a support rib disposed between the first support plate 58 and the second support plate 60. Attention is directed to Farber which teaches a sauna room comprising a plurality of panels, each panel comprising a first support plate 64” and the second support plate 66”, support ribs 78 (Fig. 10B) connecting the first support plate 64” and the second support plate 66” for making the panels more rigid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ support ribs between the first (outer) support plate 58 and second (inner) support plate 60 of Sappenfield et al. wall hollow panel in view of the teaching of Farber for making the hollow panel more rigid and stronger.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sappenfield et al. (2007/0050903) in view of Farber (11,821,195) and further in view of JP2005-155243.
Sappenfield et al. do not disclose the hollow (wall) panel made of a polycarbonate panel. Attention is directed to JP2005-155243 which teaches a hollow panel 5 made of a polycarbonate panel. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to have the panels of Sappenfield et al. made of polycarbonate in view of JP2005-155243 as a matter of an obvious design material choice.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sappenfield et al. (2007/0050903) in views of Farber (11,821,195) , JP2005-155243 and further in view of JP2000-144941.
Sappenfield et al. do not disclose the hollow panel 50 formed with a plurality of scratch grooves extending in a height direction of the wall. Attention is directed to JP2000-144941 which teaches a sauna (see the translation paragraph [0002]) comprising a wall panel 1 comprising grooves 3 having scratch surfaces 6 and 7 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0021]) extending in a height direction of the wall panel 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Sappenfield et al. wall panel to have grooves with scratch surfaces for preventing excess dew water on the panel to keep it clean.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sappenfield et al. (2007/0050903) in view of Farber (11,821,195) and JP2005-155243 and further in view of Blanco (558,765).
Sappenfield et al. do not disclose the wall comprises an inner cork panel. Attention is directed to Blanco which teaches a sauna comprising a wall panel having an exterior wall 42, an interior wall 43 and a cork panel inside the wall panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ a cork panel inside the wall panel of Sappenfield et al. in view of Blanco (558,765) to further enhance the insulation of the sauna.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 517-270-3735. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754