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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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:
-corrugated parts on the folding component (cl. 2, 17)
-the first folding part and the first support body passing though the first embedded block (cl. 3)
-the second folding prat and the second support body passing through the second embedded block (cl. 4).
-the first clamping ring and second clamping ring passing though the first inscribed ring (cl. 6)
-the matching sizes (cl. 16)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. [0030], applicant is requested to provide the reference numerals in a list for readability.
In para. [0031], “termin-ology” should be deleted and replaced with --terminology--.
Applicant uses terms such as “elaborately designed” or “exquisite” throughout the specification (e.g., in paras [0079], [0082]) in the style of advertisement copy. Applicant is advised to delete such recitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2 and 17, applicant is advised to recite that the corrugated parts are configured --over-- or --above-- the folding component. Neither the specification nor the drawings show that they are located on the folding component.
In claim 5, applicant is advised to delete “, and the first accommodating part is configured to accommodate a second clamping ring” in lines 2-3; and to delete “and the second accommodating part is configured to accommodate the first clamping ring,” in lines 5-6 for clarity.
In claim 16, applicant recites “wherein the bathtub and the foldable batch support with matching sizes needs to be selected.” It is not clear what this limitation intends to confer and the specification merely repeats the limitation verbatim. It appears that applicant may be attempting to claim that the foldable bath support is a sized configured to match with or be received within the bathtub, however clarification by amendment is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: folding component in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 - 17 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 1, applicant recites “in a direction close to” which is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in a direction close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what direction is being claimed and how ‘close’ it may or may not be to the first clamping block (as in claim 1). The specification merely repeats this language. It appears that this may be an error in translation and that applicant intends to recite “in a direction facing the first clamping block.” It is noted that the language “in a direction close to” is repeated in claims 6, 7, and 15 and those claims are similarly indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, in lines 6-7, applicant recites “wherein the first folding part and the first support body pass through the first embedded block.” Previously, the claim sets forth that the first embedded block is formed on the first folding part and a first embedding groove is arranged on the lower end on the first support body. The specification sets forth that the embedded block is inserted into the embedding groove and fixed with a fastener (see paras. [0053], [0054] in the as-filed specification). At no point do the specification or drawings provide that the first folding part passes through a part of itself. Moreover, the first support body is not received in or passed through the embedded block, indeed, the opposite occurs. This language is misdescriptive and therefore indefinite. It appears that this is an error in translation. As best understood, wherein the first folding part and the first support body are fixed together by the embedded block being inserted into the embedding groove and fixed together with a first fixing member. Applicant is advised to claim such a configuration to overcome the defect. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 6-7, applicant recites “wherein the second folding part and the second support body pass through the second embedded block.” Previously, the claim sets forth that the second embedded block is formed on the second folding part and a second embedding groove is arranged on the lower end on the second support body. The specification sets forth that the embedded block is inserted into the embedded groove and fixed with a fastener (see paras. [0057], [0058] in the as-filed specification). At no point do the specification or drawings provide that the second folding part passes through a part of itself. Moreover, the second support body is not received in or passed through the embedded block, indeed, the opposite occurs. This language is misdescriptive and therefore indefinite. It appears that this is an error in translation. As best understood, wherein the second folding part and the second support body are fixed together by the embedded block being inserted into the embedding groove and fixed together with a second fixing member. Applicant is advised to claim such a configuration to overcome the defect. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, in line 5-6, applicant recites that “the first clamping ring and the second clamping ring pass through the first inscribed ring.” However, previously in the claim, applicant recites that the first clamping ring is formed with the first inscribed ring. In other words, that the inscribed ring is an interior ring formed on the first clamping right, see figure 5 in the as-filed application. The first clamping ring and portions thereof cannot pass through itself. This language is misdescriptive, of unascertainable scope, and therefore indefinite. It appears that this is an error in translation.
Regarding claim 7, “a second clamping block” is a double inclusion of the second clamping block which is set forth in parent claim 1. It is not clear if this is the same clamping block or a different clamping block.
Regarding claim 8:
In line 1, “a first limiting hole” is a double inclusion of the first limiting hole set forth in claim 1.
In line 2, “a first inscribed ring” is a double inclusion of the first inscribed ring set forth in claim 6.
In line 2, “a second limiting hole” is a double inclusion of the second limiting hole set forth in claim 1.
In lines 2-3, “a second inscribed ring” is a double inclusion of the second inscribed ring as set forth in claim 6.
It is not clear if these structures are the same as those previously recited or are in addition to them.
The term “close to” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Similar to claims 1, 6, 7, and 15, it appears that this is an error in translation and applicant might intend to recite that first ring faces the second ring. Correction is required.
The remaining claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency. In view of the above defects, the claims are examined as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the most pertinent prior art, taken alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests a foldable bath support including a body and a footstool, where the body is folded and unfolded through a folding component; wherein the folding component comprises a first folding part arranged on the first support body, a second folding part arranged on the second support body, and a locking member; a first limiting hole is arranged in the first folding part, and a first clamping block is formed in the first limiting hole; a second limiting hole corresponding to the first limiting hole is arranged in the second folding part, and a second clamping block is formed in the second limiting hole in a direction close to the first clamping block; the locking member is arranged in the first limiting hole and the second limiting hole in a penetrating way, and rotationally connects the first folding part and the second folding part; and wherein, when the first folding part and the second folding part rotate relatively until the first support body and the second support body are unfolded, the second clamping block abuts against the first clamping block and locks the first support body and the second support body.
In turning to the most pertinent prior art:
Sherrer et al (US 860,577) shows a foldable bath support having a first body (1) and a second body (2), and a foot stool (4), wherein the first and second body are folded and unfolded through a folding component, the folding component having a first folding part (11) and a second folding part (15) and a locking member (18), but Sherrer does not show the first and second limiting holes and clamping blocks as claimed.
Jones (US 243,573), Pruzhansky (US 2022/0079390), Mutch et al. (US 11,122,938) and Chen (US 11,944,243) all show foldable and portable bathtubs of interest to the instant invention.
Conclusion
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