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 .
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 supporting means and associated cover sheet (cl. 11) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14 should begin with the word –A-- before “cabin” and “system”, respectively.
Claims 2 – 13 and 15 should begin with the word “The.”
In claim 6, “the latter” is informal and should be corrected.
In claims 11, 13, and 14, the use of “it” is informal and should be corrected.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: heating means in claim 1, supporting means in claim 11, and coupling means in 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 – 15 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.
There are numerous issues with antecedent basis, likely as a result of the preliminary amendment removing multiply dependent claims. Applicant’s cooperation in correcting any issues not explicitly set forth below is requested.
Regarding claim 1:
In line 1, “particularly” is indefinite, since it is unclear if the limitations which follow are required or merely preferred. See MPEP § 2173.05(d)
The phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what it means for the heating means to be “uniquely” associated with the back wall. Is applicant attempting to claim some novel mounting configuration? Or that it is only associated with the back wall? The specification does not provide a definition for the relative term and accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “said housing seat.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “a housing seat.”
Regarding claim 6, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the shelf element.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “a shelf element.”
Regarding claim 7, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the shelf element.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “a shelf element.”
Regarding claim 8, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the shelf element.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “a shelf element.”
Regarding claim 10, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “said housing compartment.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “a housing compartment.”
Regarding claim 14, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “said coupling means.” Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not set forth “coupling means.”
The remaining claims are indefinite insofar as they depend from rejected base claims. In view of the above defects, the claims will be examined best understood.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri (EP 2452666) in view of Huang et al. (CN 2234268, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Turri discloses a cabin (1) for wellness treatments including a sauna/steam bath (abstract), including a containment structure (fig. 2) comprising a plurality of walls coupled to each other (fig. 2) and defining at least one treatment space (4) adapted to accommodate at least one user, the walls comprising: at least one access wall (2, 3) for access to the treatment space, at least one back wall (opposite of 2,3), and at least pair of side walls opposite each other (orthogonally connected to front and back wall)(fig. 2) and located between the access wall and back wall; at least one air conditioning system of the treatment space comprising a heating means (5, 6, 7, 8) associated with the back wall while each of the side walls are devoid of the heating means.
Turri is silent as to an electronic management and control unit of the heating means, although there must be some control and power architecture because of the lights. Attention is turned to Huang which teaches a similar steam bath cabin having an electric heater (2) and an electronic management and control unit (3) located on the roof of the enclosure (fig. 2) and controlling the output of steam (via 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the heating and controlling device of Huang in the enclosure of Turri so that the temperature and production of the steam can be regulated. Under the proposed modification, the side walls will be devoid of the electronic management and control unit since it is located on the roof.
Regarding claim 2, Turri as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further provides that the back wall comprises at least one housing seat adapted to house at least a part (5) of the air conditioning system (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Turri as modified shows that the treatment space comprises at least one shelf element (14) associated with the back wall (fig. 2) and comprising at least one cavity in communication with the housing seat and adapted to house at least a part (6) of the heating means. See annotated figure above.
Regarding claim 5, Turri as modified shows that the heating means comprise at least one steam production (7) and dispensing unit (5, 6).
Regarding claim 7, Turri as modified shows that the shelf element (14) comprises a supporting portion (45) for the user.
Regarding claim 8, Turri as modified shows that the air conditioning system also includes a steam interception (piping 18) and regulation means (dispenser 17 and closing element 15) associated with the back wall (see annotated figure above) and the shelf element (fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, Turri as modified shows that the containment structure includes an upper closing wall/roof (para. [0017]), and under the proposed modification with Huang, also shows that the upper closing wall includes at least one housing compartment (see annotated figure below) adapted to house the electronic management and control unit (3).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri and Huang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Brunelle et al. (CA 2638508 hereinafter Brunelle).
Regarding claim 3, Turri shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the heating means extends through the back wall of the cabin, and may be an integral part of the cabin, mounted in a suitable zone (para. [0018]), but does not explicitly provide that the heating means is ‘uniquely’ and directly associated with the wall. Attention is turned to Brunelle which teaches a similar enclosure (62) having a wall (64) on which a heating unit (13, 22) is ‘uniquely’ and directly associated (i.e., built in, attached). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have attached or connected the heating means of Turri to the back wall of the enclosure so as to create a spa with minimal footprint.
Regarding claim 10, Turri and Huang show all of the instant invention as discussed above, but do not show an inlet port and a leaf as claimed. Attention is turned to Brunelle which teaches a similar enclosure having a housing compartment (10) which houses various control components of the spa, there being an inlet port (circumscribed by frame 9 in fig. 2), and a leaf (16’) associated with the port and movable between open and closed positions, respectively away from and covering the port, in order to allow and prevent access to the components of the spa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to have provided a movable leaf like that taught by Brunelle in the modified device of Turri in order to protect the control unit from steam or other environmental factors but still allow access for maintenance.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri and Huang, as applied to claim 1, in view of DE 202011107004 (hereinafter DE ‘004).
Regarding claim 6, Turri as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the shelf element is cantilevered from the back wall. DE ‘004 teaches a similar sauna (1) having a shelf element (5, 5’) which is cantilevered to the wall (see fig 2). It would have been obvious to cantilever the shelf element of Turri in order to minimize legs or other supports which would interfere with the steam and heating elements.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri and Huang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Lanius (US 7,392,551)
Regarding claim 11, Turri as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show the particulars of the support and user cover. Attention is turned to Lanius which teaches a support (66) which is attached to the wall (20) and is associated with the back wall of the enclosure (44) and comprises a flexible element (col. 4, ln. 44, note that the rubber coating is flexible and a wire frame has at least some degree of flexibility) and around which the cover sheet (towel illustrated in figure 1, near to leader line 28) is capable of being rolled. It would have been obvious to have provided a supporting means in the spa of Turri as modified so that there is a place for a user to store accessories.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri and Huang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Sung (US 5,117,481).
Regarding claim 12, Turri as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that at least one of the side walls is associated with the back and access walls in a removable manner. Attention is turned to Sung which teaches a similar spa enclosure (fig. 1) wherein the front/access panel (2,3) and the back panel (7,8) are removably attached to the side walls (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the walls of the sauna of Turri as modified with the ability to be detached so that the spa can be broken down when not in use.
Claim(s) 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turri and Huang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Schimmel (US 10,724,259).
Regarding claims 13 – 15, Turri as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not provide a coupling means on the back wall such that at least two cabins are coupled together by interposition of the coupling means. Attention is turned to Schimmel which teaches a similar, portable cabin having a rear wall (23), and a plurality of openings (21a) associated with each of the four corners of the roof (21)(and thus associated with each of the four walls of the enclosure). Schimmel further teaches a coupling means (150) interposed between two adjacent cabins (101) such that two cabins and thus, the back walls thereof, are coupled together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided openings and connectors in the device of Turri as modified so that additional units can be coupled together for concerts or festivals or other similar events. While Schimmel shows that the connector is associated with access wall of sauna and not the back wall, since Schimmel also shows identical openings at four corners of the enclosure, it is a design choice well within the purview of the ordinary artisan to attach the multiple units together at the front wall, back wall, or both. Furthermore, the proposed modification is a rearrangement of parts. There is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed location of the coupler presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/693452 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The limitations of claim 1 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 in the ‘452 application, including the containment structure having a plurality of walls, including an access wall, a back wall, and opposed side walls, and an air conditioning system including a heater and a EMCU which is associated with the backwall and the side walls being devoid of the air conditioning system.
The limitations of claim 2 are contained in the limitations of claim 14 of the ‘452 application such that the reference application claim anticipates the instant claim.
The limitations of claim 3 are contained in the limitations of claim 15 of the ‘452 application such that the reference application claim anticipates the instant claim.
The limitations of claim 5 are contained in the limitations of claim 13 of the ‘452 application such that the reference application claim anticipates the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arnold (US 2005/0076430) and Perovic (US 9,801,783) show saunas relating to the state of the art.
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