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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the screen display (location), first water storage, second water storage, main water storage with plumbing connections to understand the device operation, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Instead, the Applicant merely supplies a generic schematic in Figure 6 that does not provide evidence that the Applicant has evidence of a viable solution. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pipe connector 304, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Instead, the Applicant merely supplies label in Figure 3 that points to the side of a housing and does not point to a pipe or a connector or any structure that can be appropriately identified as such. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 shows two reference designators for nozzle 308, which implies that there are two nozzles on the device. Figure 3 shows that there is only one nozzle on the device. Therefore, it appears that Figure 4 includes either an extra block or one of the references to nozzle 308 should be a different number. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, details that would create a viable device with the claimed scrubbing and dispensing operation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). For example, the disclosure does not describe a pressurized main water storage, locations of the fluid supplies, the plumbing between, a way of producing a fluid spray, or a way of moving water upward against gravity from the base to the hand washing unit, such as a pump or a connection that pressurizes the fluid storage units. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Applicant has in his possession a viable solution that would operate as claimed. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a pair of motor” should be “a pair of motors” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a pair of chain drive” should be “a pair of chain drives” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the first spray” should be “the first sprayer” to be consistent with its prior usage in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the first spray” should be “the first sprayer” to be consistent with its prior usage in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the first storage tank 404” should be “the first water storage 404” (or vice versa) to be consistent with its prior usage in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the second storage tank 408” should be “the second water storage 408” (or vice versa) to be consistent with its prior usage in the claim. 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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hand and foot washing device” in Claims 1-10, “device” in Claim 1, “hand washing unit” in Claim 1, “feet washing unit” in Claim 1, and “control unit” in Claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the motion sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a motion sensor has not been previously claimed.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park WO 2004/109021 A1 (hereafter Park) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches:
1. A hand and foot washing device 100 (washstand, Title) having a screen display 228 (laundry plate 21 – can display cloths hold a smartphone while using the device), a first water storage 404 (cold water supply 312), a second water storage 408 (drain pipe for exhausting the water of the washstand connected to overflow 330), a main water storage 432 (hot water supply 316) characterized in that said device 100 comprising:
a hand washing unit 104 (sink with lower tap 310) for cleaning user's hand, a connector 108 (connecting pipes 312, 316) connecting the hand washing unit 104 with a feet washing unit 112 (assembly shown in Figure 9), a control unit 400 (switch (not shown) that operates driving motor 420 when tap 120 is opened) configured to operate the hand washing unit 104 and the feet washing unit 112;
the hand washing unit 104 including a nozzle 308 (lower tap 310) dispensing fluid and a basin 312 (washstand 320) collecting the dispensed water (Figure 8);
the feet washing unit 112 including a first base 204 (receiving spaces 412 and 414), a second base 208 (center portion between receiving spaces 412 and 414, Figure 9); the first base 204 including a first sprayer 216 (spray nozzles 510a to 510c and 512a to 512c); the second base 208 (including a pair of protective mesh 209 (perforated metal shown in bottom and back in Figure 9) receiving user's feet; the feet washing unit 112 including a first inlet 236 (branch pipe 510), a second inlet 240 (branch pipe 512), a third inlet 244 (pipe 326), a pair of belt brushes 220 (upper brush 430, medium brush 450, and lower brush 480), a pair of motor 248, 248a (driving motor 420, see discussion below), a drive belt 252 (belt or chain 424) and a pair of chain drive 256, 256a (belt or chain 490a and belt or chain 490c); and
the control unit 400 being configured for operating the pair of motor 248, 248a scrubbing the pair of belt brushes 220 and dispensing the water, soap and air from the nozzle 308 and the first spray 116 respectively (operation disclosed by Park).
Park discloses multiple brushes (eight shown in Figure 9) driven by a single motor cleverly connected to all brushes through three different chain drives as shown in Figure 9. As a result, all brushes are driven at the same time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second motor with the motivation to allow for separate on/off control (or significantly different speed) of brushes, for example lateral brushes 440c, 460c, 442c, and 462a, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 3, Park teaches:
3. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein a pipe connector 304 (overflow 330) receiving water from the first storage tank 404 (cold water supply 312) and draining the waste water to the second storage tank 408 (drain pipe for exhausting the water of the washstand connected to overflow 330).
Regarding Claim 4, Park teaches:
4. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connector 108 (connecting pipes 312, 316) encapsulating pipes for inletting and out letting the water from the first storage tank 404 (cold water supply 312) and the second storage tank 408 (drain pipe for exhausting the water of the washstand connected to overflow 330) respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Park teaches:
6. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first sprayer 216 (spray nozzles 510a to 510c and 512a to 512c) including nozzles for dispensing fluid on the user's feet (shown in Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Park teaches:
7. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of chain drive 256, 256a (belt or chain 490a and belt or chain 490c) being fixedly connected (through rigid structure shown in Figure 9) to the pair of motor 248, 248a (driving motor 420, device modified to have second motor as discussed in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Park teaches:
8. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the drive belt 252 (belt or chain 424) being fixedly attached (through rigid structure shown in Figure 9) with the chain drive 256, 256a (belt or chain 490a and belt or chain 490c).
Regarding Claim 9, Park teaches:
9. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of belt brushes 220 (upper brush 430, medium brush 450, and lower brush 480) being fixedly position (through rigid structure shown in Figure 9) on the drive belt 252 (belt or chain 424).
Regarding Claim 10, Park teaches:
10. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of motor 248, 248a (driving motor 420, device modified to have second motor as discussed in Claim 1) driving the chain drive 256, 256a (belt or chain 490a and belt or chain 490c), the drive belt 252 (belt or chain 424) and the pair of belt brushes 220 (upper brush 430 and medium brush 450, and lower brush 480).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park WO 2004/109021 A1 (hereafter Park) in view of design choice and Reeder et al. US 2018/0282984 (hereafter Reeder et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Park teaches:
5. The hand and foot washing device 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the motion sensor (see discussion below) sensing the hand movement below the nozzle 308 (lower tap 310).
Park discloses lower tap 310 shown in Figure 8 that is visually identifiable as a bathroom faucet. Park does not disclose a motion sensor that senses hand movement below the nozzle. The reference Reeder et al. discloses a bathroom faucet 12’ in Figure 5 with a motion sensor 36 integrated into its mounting flange shown in Figure 6 that is used to send a signal to provide hands-free faucet operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the faucet of the Park device to include a motion sensor as taught by Reeder et al. with the motivation to provide hands-free faucet operation using a technology that is common in the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) and objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of hand and feet washing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723