DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 2/10/26.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver (US 11,957,283) in view of Mazzei (US 6,890,126).
Regarding claim 1, Oliver discloses a bathtub, comprising: a bathtub body (12); a water pump (30) mounted on an outer side (fig. 1) of a bathtub body side plate (16) of the bathtub body; and a bubble water generating device (36)(MNB; col. 9, ln. 5); mounted on the bathtub body side plate, wherein the bathtub body side plate is provided with a side plate water outlet hole (34), a first water pipe (60-1) is connected between the side plate water outlet hole and a water inlet of the water pump (see fig. 11, 60-1 connects to pump inlet), and a second water pipe (62-2, 60-8) is connected between a water outlet (see outlet fitting of pump connected to 62-2 in fig. 11) of the water pump and the bubble water generating device.
But Oliver is silent as to the structure of the bubble water generating device. Attention is turned to Mazzei which teaches a bubble generating device having a device main body (30) having a mixing flow channel (throat, 35); wherein a device air inlet hole (37) in communication with the mixing flow channel is provided on a side portion of the device main body, where the inlet hole has a constant diameter (see fig. 4); wherein a device water inlet (32) in communication with the mixing flow channel is provided at one end of the device main body, a radius of the device water inlet is greater than a radius of the mixing flow channel (col. 3, ln. 29-33, the inlet 32 constricts to the throat, and thus the inlet radius is greater than the throat radius). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided mixer injector shape of Mazzei in the device of Oliver in order to provide enhanced dissolution of gas in the water. It is additionally noted that this converging-diverging shape is common in the mixer injector arts and is regularly used to entrain air and other gases in liquid. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP §2144.06. Under the proposed modification, the second water pipe will connect with the device water inlet as the outlet from the pump will be attached to the mixer-injector to send water from the inlet of the injector through the throat, and out of the outlet (Mazzei, col. 6, ln. 36-37).
Regarding claim 3, Oliver and Mazzei show all of the instant invention as discussed above, but are silent as to the diameter of the air inlet hole being less than or equal to 1 mm. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the small air inlet hole of Mazzei to perform equally well as applicant’s for the purpose of entraining small bubbles into the fluid stream. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Oliver as modified to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and as shown in figure 4 of Mazzei, the air inlet hole (37) is located near the end at which the device water inlet (32) is located. See that 37 is closer to 32 than 33.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in figure 4, the air inlet hole is arranged perpendicular to the mixing flow channel. See that the mixing flow channel (35) extends axially while the air inlet hole intersects the device main body radially.
Regarding claim 7, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and as shown in figure 4, Mazzei shows that a flow channel outlet (36) of the mixing flow channel is outwardly tapered in shape.
Regarding claim 8, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and Mazzei further provides a tapered transition hole (34) connected between a flow channel inlet (see annotated figure below) of the mixing flow channel (35) and the device water inlet (32), wherein a radius of the tapered transition hole decreases along a water flow direction (see converging form of 34 in fig. 1, col. 3, ln. 29-33).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in figures 3 and 11, Oliver shows that the water outlet hole (34) is located at a bottom of the bathtub body side plate.
Regarding claim 10, Oliver shows a bracket (22) mounted on the outer side of the bathtub body side plate and the water pump (30) is mounted on the bracket (see fig. 1, 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver (US 11,957,283) in view of Mazzei (US 5,863,128)
Regarding claim 11, Oliver discloses a bathtub, comprising: a bathtub body (12); a water pump (30) mounted on an outer side (fig. 1, 11) of a bathtub body side plate (16) of the bathtub body; and a bubble water generating device (36) mounted on the bathtub body side plate, wherein the bathtub body side plate is provided with a side plate water outlet hole (34), a first water pipe (60-1) is connected between the side plate water outlet hole and a water inlet of the water pump (see where 60-1 connects to inlet of pump), and a second water pipe (62-2, 60-8) is connected between a water outlet of the water pump and the bubble water generating device.
Oliver is silent as to the structure of the bubble water generating device. Attention is turned to Mazzei which teaches a bubble water generating device having a device main body (21) having a mixing flow channel (40, 41, 42, 43), the mixing flow channel is in communication with a device air inlet hole (46 to 45)(col. 3, ln. 24) that is provided on a side portion (see fig. 1) of the device main body; the main body further comprises a device water inlet (33) in communication with the mixing flow channel is provided at one end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided mixer injector shape of Mazzei in the device of Oliver in order to provide a greater interface of the gas in the water (col. 5, ln. 60-67) to enhance the treatment of the water with the gas. It is additionally noted that this converging-diverging shape is common in the mixer injector arts and is regularly used to entrain air and other gases in liquid. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP §2144.06.
Regarding claim 12, Oliver as modified by Mazzei shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, Mazzei further provides a radius of the device water inlet is greater than a radius of the mixing flow channel, see figure 1, col. 6, table; diameters of 40, 41 are .75, .79 in, respectively which is smaller than 1.55 in. Under the proposed modification, the second water pipe will connect with the device water inlet as the outlet from the pump will be attached to the mixer-injector to send water from the inlet of the injector through the injecting portion, and out of the outlet (Mazzei, col. 5, ln. 32-34).
Regarding claim 14, Oliver and Mazzei show all of the instant invention as discussed above, but are silent as to the diameter of the air inlet hole being less than or equal to 1 mm, instead teaching that the diameter is about 3.55 mm (the groove of diameter.14 inches can also be an individual hole as discussed in col. 3, ln. 24)(col. 6, see table). However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the air inlet hole of Mazzei to perform equally well as applicant’s for the purpose of entraining air into liquid in order to make small bubbles. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Oliver as modified to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and as shown in figure 1 of Mazzei, the air inlet hole (45) is located near the end at which the device water inlet (33) is located.
Regarding claim 17, as shown in figure 1, the air inlet hole is arranged perpendicular to the mixing flow channel. See that the mixing flow channel (40, 42, 43) extends axially while the air inlet hole intersects the device main body radially.
Regarding claim 18, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and as shown in figure 1, Mazzei shows that a flow channel outlet (43) of the mixing flow channel is outwardly tapered in shape.
Regarding claim 19, Oliver as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and Mazzei further provides a tapered transition hole (35) connected between a flow channel inlet of the mixing flow channel (41, 40) and the device water inlet (33), wherein a radius of the tapered transition hole decreases along a water flow direction (see converging form of 35 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, as shown in figures 3 and 11, Oliver shows that the water outlet hole (34) is located at a bottom of the bathtub body side plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 1 have been considered, but are moot since Mazzei is being used to teach what is lacking in Mazzei ‘128.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. that the device main body adsorbs air only through negative pressure and not through a plumbed connection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hanada (US 8,845,178) shows a conventional mixer-injector nozzle (fig. 13) which uses negative pressure to draw air or other fluid into the throat. See also KR 101813113, figure 2.
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