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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 4, filed 3/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art US 9,783,325 (Hierholzer) which teaches use of a mesh packet to provide an additive to a bath basin.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 US 2006/0070179 (Siegal) in view of US 9,783,325 (Hierholzer).
Regarding claim 1, Siegal discloses an improved single-use disposable footbath basin liner comprising:
a single-use disposable footbath basin liner (10,105) having an inside surface and an outside surface; and
a packet (40) that encloses at least one footbath product selected from a group of additives including fragrances and disinfectants (Para. 0042),
the packet being attached at least indirectly to the inside surface of the single-use disposable footbath basin liner (Figs. 3-6; Paras. 0035, 0037-0039, 0045-0049);
a footbath basin (115);
the single-use disposable footbath basin liner being installed in the footbath basin such that the outside surface of the single-use disposable footbath basin liner is in contact with the inside surface of the footbath basin and inside surface of the single-use disposable footbath basin liner is facing away from the inside surface of the footbath basin (Fig. 7; Para. 0043),
the packet also being positioned so that the at least one product contained within the packet is released into water when water is introduced into the footbath basin (Para.0043) .
Siegal, however, discloses that the packet is ruptured by a user to expose the contents instead of providing a mesh packet which functions while remaining intact and containing a water soluble powder or granular substance.
Hierholzer teaches a packet (100/200/300/900) for dispensing additives into a bath basin wherein the packet is fashioned from a mesh material (C5 L53-59) and containing a granular substance (120/122) in the form of bath salts provided with fragrances and herbs (C6 L8-22) to provide a number of benefits and/or comforts to a bath user. The mesh material allows the water and additives to interact while the packet remains intact (C5 L53-56; Figs. 4, 6, 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide alternative or additional granular additives including bath salts and to utilize a mesh to contain said additives, as taught by Hierholzer, so as to prevent the granular additive from dispersing through the basin where it could cause discomfort while still facilitating the dissolving/mixing of the additive with the basin water.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegal in view of Hierholzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,180,115 (Conrard).
Regarding claim 2, Siegal states that the packet (40) is secured to the liner (Figs. 3-6) and that a chord (90) can be used to manipulate the packet but doesn't explicitly state that the packet is anchored by a chord.
Conrard teaches a mesh packet (20/120/220) which contains a bath additive (60) and which comprises a chord (30/130/230) for anchoring (40/50) the packet within a basin of a bathtub.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anchor the packet with a chord, as taught by Conrard, so that the packet can be removed when finished and/or mounted in alternate locations as required/desired by a user for proper mixing/interaction/use of the packet/any material within
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegal in view of Hierholzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,465,436 (Bleicher).
Regarding claim 3, Siegal states that the packet is formed from a piece of material (60) with a surrounding edge (periphery) (75) coupled to the inner surface of the liner to form an enclosed space (80) for an additive (45) (Para. 0037). However Siegal doesn’t explicitly state how it is secured such as through the use of an adhesive.
Bleicher teaches a liner (10) for a bathtub (12) further comprising a drain hole (32) covered by a drain seal (36) which is secured in place by an adhesive (C3 L31-34, 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an adhesive to secure the packet to the liner, as taught by Bleicher, so that it can be installed/placed by a manufacturer and not require any user assembly/interaction such as manipulating a coupling mechanism.
Regarding claim 4, Siegal states that the packet is formed from a piece of material (60) with a surrounding edge (periphery) (75) coupled to the inner surface of the liner to form an enclosed space (80) for an additive (45) (Para. 0037) contained between the packet material and inner surface of the liner (Fig. 4) and Hierholzer teaches forming the packet of mesh as previously discussed.
However Siegal doesn’t explicitly state how the packet is secured to the liner such as through the use of an adhesive.
Bleicher teaches a liner (10) for a bathtub (12) further comprising a drain hole (32) covered by a drain seal (36) which is secured in place by an adhesive (C3 L31-34, 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an adhesive to secure the packet to the liner, as taught by Bleicher, so that it can be installed/placed by a manufacturer and not require any user assembly/interaction such as manipulating a coupling mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,659,495 (Figliola) teaches a packet fashioned from a mesh-like material, containing a powdered bath additive and provide with a chord.
US 10,010,643 (Beychok) teaches an apparatus for introducing additives to a bath area wherein the additive can be provided in various forms and containers including a mesh container.
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 NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights