DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 12/5/25.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 - 6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the at least a portion”. Claim 6 is due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 4 -7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez (US 5,276,926).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez shows a bathtub, comprising a body and bathing basin sized effectively for bathing a young child (10), wherein the body comprises a bottom portion comprising a base (see annotated figure below, 14); and a set of opposing sidewalls (see annotated figure below) adjacent to the bottom portion; wherein at least one sidewall (12), an adjustable sidewall configured to extend between an upright and at least one inclined/reclined position with respect to the base (col. 2, ln. 24-25). Note that the upright position will be at the lowest protrusion, while the reclined position will be at any of the higher ones (see fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4-5, Lopez shows the at least one adjustable sidewall further comprises a first back rest (12) and a backrest overmold which is textured to prevent sliding (col. 2, ln. 16-20; note: mesh).
Regarding claim 6, Lopez shows that the adjustable sidewall extends to comprise a headrest configured to support the head of the child (18).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Lopez shows a rear leg having a track profile defining resting portions (43/44) along which positions of a cross bar (24) and the sidewall is adjusted and locked (col. 2, ln. 38-43), there being at least 3 different reclining positions (see fig. 3, note multiple ridges and grooves 43/44).
Regarding claim 11, Lopez shows that the sidewall opposite to the adjustable one has a second backrest without a headrest (14, fig. 3, see annotated figure below).
Regarding claim 12, Lopez shows that the bathtub is configured to nest within an identical tub with a nesting space differential of less than about 1.85 inches. Note that the device of Lopez is capable of this function. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 13, Lopez shows that the body has a ‘nominal’ thickness. See fig.1. Note that everything made from a material has at least some sort of thickness. Inasmuch as applicant has defined ‘nominal’ as meaning stackable’, the limitation has also been addressed above in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, Lopez shows that the bottom comprises an underside (32) which is configured to fit safely in a ‘standard’ kitchen sink. Note that the device of Lopez is capable of this function. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 17, Lopez shows a method for adjusting an adjustable bathtub, wherein the method comprises adjusting the angle of the sidewall which is configured to extend between an upright position with respect to the base and at least one inclined/reclined position with respect to the base; wherein the bathtub comprises a rear leg having a track profile defining a plurality of resting positions along which positions of a cross bar and the at least one adjustable sidewall is adjusted and locked. See annotated figure below. The method as claimed is performed via the normal use of the device of Lopez.
\
PNG
media_image1.png
734
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez.
Regarding claims 14 -15, Lopez as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the reclined position is angular with respect to the base, but is silent as to it being from 155 – 120 degrees, or more particularly 138 degrees. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed angular positioning presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the bath of Lopez to perform equally well as applicant' s. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Lopez to have angular adjustment as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish.
Claim(s) 2 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of KR2020120000955 (hereinafter KR '955).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lopez shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show the particulars of the drain and hump in the base. Attention is turned to KR ‘955 which teaches a similar baby bath having a hump (300) which can be used to stabilize the child and a drain recess having a plug that caps the recess to plug and unplug the basin (500)(see fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the drain and hump of KR ‘955 in the device of Lopez in order to stabilize the infant and making emptying the tub simpler.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of Chapman (US 2,285,900).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Lopez shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not provide that the sidewall is locked in the reclined or upright position with a ‘push lock’ mechanism. Attention is turned to Chapman which teaches a similar bathing device for children, including a cross bar which is held within a locking recess via pushing, therefore constituting a ‘push lock’. See annotated figure below. It would have been obvious to have provided locking recesses like those of Chapman in the device of Lopez in order to more securely hold the sidewall and headrest in the desired position.
Regarding claim 18, Lopez shows all of the instant apparatus and method as discussed above, but does not provide that the sidewall is locked in the reclined or upright position with a ‘push lock’ mechanism. Attention is turned to Chapman which teaches a similar bathing device for children, including a cross bar which is held within a locking recess via pushing, therefore constituting a ‘push lock’. See annotated figure below. It would have been obvious to have provided locking recesses like those of Chapman in the device of Lopez in order to more securely hold the sidewall and headrest in the desired position.
Regarding claim 19, Lopez shows a bathtub, comprising a body and bathing basin sized effectively for bathing a young child (10), wherein the body comprises a bottom portion comprising a base (see annotated figure below, 14); and a set of opposing sidewalls (see annotated figure below) adjacent to the bottom portion; wherein at least one sidewall (12), an adjustable sidewall configured to extend between an upright and at least one inclined/reclined position with respect to the base (col. 2, ln. 24-25), note that the upright position will be at the lowest protrusion, while the reclined position will be at any of the higher ones (see fig. 3); and a rear leg having a track profile defining resting portions (43/44) along which positions of a cross bar (24) and the sidewall is adjusted and locked (col. 2, ln. 38-43).
Lopez does not provide that the sidewall is locked in the reclined or upright position with a ‘push lock’ mechanism. Attention is turned to Chapman which teaches a similar bathing device for children, including a cross bar which is held within a locking recess via pushing, therefore constituting a ‘push lock’. See annotated figure below. It would have been obvious to have provided locking recesses like those of Chapman in the device of Lopez in order to more securely hold the sidewall and headrest in the desired position.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that there were no grounds raised for the indefiniteness rejection of claim 5. Applicant is referred to paragraph 5 in the Non-final action. As the current rejection only corrects an obvious typographic error, this is not a new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that the sidewalls identified by the Examiner are not a part of the tub body. However, there is nothing precluding the interpretation of the adjustable back rest portion of the seat 12 as being a sidewall and also a part of the tub body. The claim is open construction (i.e., “comprising”) and does not require a narrow construction having no other components as argued by applicant. 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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights