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 Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “openings and” in line 9 of claim 1 should be --openings; and--; “sidewalls” in line 13 of claim 1 should be --side walls--; “said two slidable bars” in line 2 of claims 11 and 12 lack antecedent basis in the claim; and claim 12 fails to end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,732,420 (hereinafter Micciche).
Regarding claim 1, Micciche discloses a bathtub shower safety bar, the safety bar comprising:
an attachment bracket (18’), the attachment bracket comprising a first vertical channel (see Fig. 2) having two side walls (32, 34) and a first back wall (33), the first back wall having at least one first opening (36) for a fastener (see col. 5, lines 48-50: screw) for attaching the first vertical channel to a vertical wall;
the side walls (32, 34) each having a second opening (37) and a common pin (38) through the second openings; and
an elongated bar (12, 14) having a first end and a second end for the pin, the bar rotatable around the pin (see Figs. 2-3);
a receiver bracket (18), the receiver bracket comprising a second vertical channel having two side walls (32, 34) and a second back wall (33), the back wall having at least one fourth opening (36) for a fastener (see col. 5, lines 48-50: screw) for attaching the second vertical channel to a vertical wall opposite the attachment bracket and in a horizontal line with the first vertical bracket.
Regarding claim 2, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the receiver bracket further comprises a latch (bottom wall 35 is consider the claimed latch) on one terminal end for locking the elongated bar in place (in horizontal position).
Regarding claim 3, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar is adjustable (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar is not adjustable (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar has a handle (19) mounted on it.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3,328,920 (hereinafter Cohen).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses a safety bar capable of being used for a bathtub shower between vertical walls of the shower, the safety bar comprising:
an attachment bracket (38), the attachment bracket comprising a first vertical channel (see col. 3, lines 39-46) having two side walls (about where 38 is pointing in Fig. 2) and a first back wall (40), the first back wall having at least one first opening (for screw 42) for a fastener (screw 42) for attaching the first vertical channel to a vertical wall (50);
the side walls each having a second opening (34) and a common pin (about 34) through the second openings; and
an elongated bar (30) having a first end and a second end for the pin, the bar rotatable around the pin (see Fig. 2);
a receiver bracket (Fig. 3), the receiver bracket comprising a second vertical channel having two side walls (where 46 and 48 are pointing) and a second back wall (about the screws in Fig. 3), the back wall having at least one fourth opening (for the screws) for a fastener (screw) for attaching the second vertical channel to a vertical wall (define via 16) opposite the attachment bracket and in a horizontal line with the first vertical bracket (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the receiver bracket further comprises a latch (bottom wall is consider the claimed latch) on one terminal end for locking the elongated bar in place (in horizontal position).
Regarding claim 3, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar is adjustable (see col. 4, lines 5-17: the rod 32 can be cut to adjust to a desired length).
Regarding claim 4, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar is not adjustable (see col. 4, lines 5-17: the rod 32 is not adjustable after fit).
Regarding claim 6, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the elongated bar has a handle (43 is considered a handle) mounted on it.
Regarding claim 7, the safety bar as claimed in claim 1 wherein the brackets and elongated bar are all manufactured from metal (see col. 3, lines 31+).
Regarding claim 8, the safety bar as claimed in claim 7 wherein the metal is aluminum (see col. 3, lines 60+).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micciche.
Micciche teaches all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the specific of the overall length of the safety bar is 3 ½ feet to 7 feet. Micciche teaches the bar extending between vertical walls of a bathtub such as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the length of a bathtub is well-known to have an overall length of between 3 ½ feet to 7 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the Micciche’s bar to have an overall length of 3 ½ feet to 7 feet, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micciche in view of US 2012/0110729 (hereinafter Baines).
Micciche teaches all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the brackets and elongated bar are all manufactured from metal. Baines teaches the equivalent alternative suitable material such as metal or plastic which include stainless steel and aluminum (see para. [0021], last 5 lines). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the material of the brackets and elongated bar of Micciche with a metal (claim 7) such as aluminum (claim 8) or a stainless steel (claim 9) as taught by Baines, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micciche in view of US 4,361,914 (hereinafter Oliver).
Micciche teaches all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the adjustability of the elongated bar is two slidable bars, one within the other. Attention is directed to the Oliver reference which teaches an analogous elongated bar that is adjustable from sections (see Fig. 3) that similar to Micciche or from two slidable bars (127, 129), one within the other (see Fig. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the two sections of Micciche with two slidable bars, one within the other as taught by Oliver, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micciche in view of Baines, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 4,944,478 (hereinafter Sullivan).
Regarding claim 11, Micciche and Baines teach all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 9 above except for a set screw for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability. Attention is directed to the Sullivan reference which teaches an analogous elongated bar that is adjustable from two slidable bars (11, 12), one within the other (see Figs. 2-3) and further comprising a set screw (24) for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the adjustable two sections of Micciche with two slidable bars further comprising a set screw for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability as taught by Sullivan, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 12, Micciche and Baines teach all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 9 above except for a spring-loaded bolt for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability. Attention is directed to the Sullivan reference which teaches an analogous elongated bar that is adjustable from two slidable bars (11, 12), one within the other (see Figs. 2-3) and further comprising a spring-loaded bolt (27) for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the adjustable two sections of Micciche with two slidable bars further comprising a spring-loaded bolt for joining the two slidable bars to enable adjustability as taught by Sullivan, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen.
Cohen teaches all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the specific of the overall length of the safety bar is 3 ½ feet to 7 feet. Cohen teaches the bar extending between vertical walls and it can be cut to a desired length during installation (see col. 4, lines 5-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the Cohen’s bar to have an overall length of 3 ½ feet to 7 feet, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of US 2012/0110729 (hereinafter Baines).
Cohen teaches all of the limitations as discussed regarding claim 1 above except for the metal is stainless steel. Baines teaches the equivalent alternative suitable material such as metal or plastic which include stainless steel and aluminum (see para. [0021], last 5 lines). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the metal of Cohen with a stainless steel as taught by Baines, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0289955 (Hartis) teaches a safety bar system having adjustable telescoping portions that is fastened by a bolt 216 that looks similar to element 48 of the instant invention.
US 7,171,705 (Hicks) teaches a similar safety bar having a length typically between 5 feet to 8 feet spanning the length of a bathtub.
US 2,011,662 (Thompson) teaches a safety bar having adjustable telescoping elongated bar with bracket having a latch (30) for one end of the elongated bar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754