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 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: anus spray part - line 10.
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.
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 & 3 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12485066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than the patent claims in at least one aspect.
Regarding claim 1, the following table compares application claim 1 to patent claim 1.
Instant Application 18/699320
US Patent 12485066
Claim 1
Claim 1
A vulvar sterilization dryer for women, comprising:
An individually controllable vulvar fumigator for women, comprising:
a curved plate-like base member (110) adapted to cover a user’s genital area and anus and having an anus spray hole (110a) formed on one side thereof;
a curved plate-like base member (110) adapted to cover a user’s genital area and anus and having a genital area spray hole (110a) and an anus spray hole (110b) formed on one side and the other side thereof;
a controller (120) disposed on one side of one surface of the base member (110) and having an operating button (121), a power supply part (122), and a PCB (123) adapted to control operations thereof;
a controller (120) disposed on one side of one surface of the base member (110) and having an operating button (121), a power supply part (122), and a PCB (123) adapted to control operations thereof according to the control of a smartphone having a Bluetooth function or the control of a remote controller;
an irradiation part (130) fixedly disposed onto the other surface of the base member (110) in such a way as to operate controllable in wavelength under the control of the controller (120) to allow light emitted from LEDs (132) to be irradiated onto the genital area and the anus;
an irradiation part (150) fixedly disposed on the other surface of the base member (110) in such a way as to be controllable in wavelength under the control of the controller (120) to allow light emitted from LEDs to be irradiated onto the genital area and the anus; and
an anus spray part (140) disposed close to the controller (120) on one surface of the base member (110) in such a way as to operate under the control of the controller (120) to allow outside air or hot air to be sprayed into the anal area through the anus spray hole (110a); and
an anus hot air spray part (140) disposed close to the hot air and fume spray part (130) on one surface of the base member (110) in such a way as to operate under the control of the controller (120) to allow the hot air to be sprayed into the anus through the anus spray hole (110b);
a covering member (150) configured to allow one end thereof to be detachably coupled to one surface of the base member (110) to coveringly protect the controller (120) and the anus spray part (140) from the outside.
a covering member (160) configured to allow one end thereof to be detachably coupled to one surface of the base member (110) in such a way as to coveringly protect the controller (120), the hot air and fume spray part (130), and the anus hot air spray part (140) from the outside.
Patent claim 1 further limits and/or includes additional elements which encompass application claim 1. Therefore, patent claim 1 anticipates application claim 1.
Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Regarding claim 3, the following table compares application claim 3 to patent claim 3.
Instant Application 18/699320
US Patent 12485066
Claim 3
Claim 3
The vulvar sterilization dryer according to claim 1, wherein the anus spray part (140) comprises an anus spray housing (141) fixedly disposed onto one surface of the base member (110), an anus heater (142) located at one side of the interior of the anus spray housing (141) in such a way as to emit heat under the control of the controller (120), an anus blower (143) disposed close to the anus heater (142) at the inside of the anus spray housing (141) in such a way as to blow air toward the anus heater (142) under the control of the controller (120), and an anus supply pipe (144) having one end connected to the anus spray housing (141) and the other end connected to the anus spray hole (110a) to allow the outside air or hot air to be supplied to the anus spray hole (110a).
The individually controllable vulvar fumigator according to claim 1, wherein the anus hot air spray part (140) comprises an anus spray housing (141) disposed close to the hot air and fume spray part (130) in such a way as to be fixed to one surface of the base member (110), an anus heater (142) located at one side of the interior of the anus spray housing (141) in such a way as to emit heat under the control of the controller (120), an anus blower (143) disposed close to the anus heater (142) at the inside of the anus spray housing (141) in such a way as to blow air toward the anus heater (142) under the control of the controller (120), and an anus supply pipe (144) having one end connected to the anus spray housing (141) and the other end connected to the anus spray hole (110b) in such a way as to allow the hot air to be supplied to the anus spray hole (110b).
Patent claim 3 further limits and/or includes additional elements which encompass application claim 3. Therefore, patent claim 3 anticipates application claim 3.
Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR102076466B1), in view of No (KR1020170138269A).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a system comprising:
a curved plate-like base member (150) adapted to cover a user’s genital area and anus and having an anus spray hole (154a) formed on one side thereof ([0045], Fig. 2); injection member (150) is formed into a curved shape and divided into sections with a partition plate that includes a lower section containing an anus spray hole;
a controller (130) disposed on one side of one surface of the base member (150) and having an operating button, a power supply part (131), and a PCB (130) adapted to control operations thereof ([0029], Fig. 2);
an irradiation part (160) fixedly disposed onto the other surface of the base member (150) in such a way as to operate controllable in wavelength under the control of the controller (130) to allow light emitted from LEDs (162) to be irradiated onto the genital area and the anus ([0029], Fig. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
348
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an anus spray part (140) disposed close to the controller (130) on one surface of the base member (150) in such a way as to operate under the control of the controller (130) to allow outside air or hot air to be sprayed into the anal area through the anus spray hole (150, at least bottommost hole 154a) ([0035], Fig. 2); Examiner interprets anus spray part as a means for spraying fluid through the anus spray hole (154a); invoking 112(f) and under broadest reasonable interpretation, anus spray part includes fumigation mechanisms that are capable of performing the claimed functions; anus injection nozzle (154b) is attached to fumigator (140) and understood to blow smoke, vapor, or air through anus spray hole (Fig. 1-3).
a covering member (110) configured to allow one end thereof to be detachably coupled to one surface of the base member (150) to coveringly protect the controller (130) and the anus spray part (140) from the outside ([0058], Fig. 2).
Park does not disclose an operating button.
However, No teaches a system comprising:
a controller (117) disposed on one side of one surface of the base member (110) and having an operating button (Fig. 2, See Switch), a power supply part (114), and a PCB (117) adapted to control operations thereof ([0012], Fig. 4); Examiner interprets controller as a generic computing device or component which necessarily includes a PCB to perform its intended function.
PNG
media_image2.png
720
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Park with the operating switch as taught by No. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve ease of use by allowing direct control over heating and cooling functions (No, [0001]).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR102076466B1), in view of No (KR1020170138269A).
Regarding claim 2, Park, in view of No, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the irradiation part (160) comprises a curved plate-shaped substrate (161) having an anus communication hole (161c) formed thereon in such a way as to communicate with the anus spray hole (150, at least bottommost hole 154a), when fixed to the other surface of the base member (150), and the LEDs (162) located on the front surface of the substrate (161) in such a way as to emit light having a sterilization function of removing harmful bacteria to prevent occurrence of diseases toward the genital area and the anus ([0046], Fig. 1); anus communication hole (161c) forms communication path with anus spray hole (154a) when base member (150) is fixed to back side of irradiation substrate (161); anus injection nozzle (154b) and controller (130) are disposed on opposite surface of base member.
Regarding claim 3, Park, in view of No, teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the anus spray part (140) comprises an anus spray housing (110) fixedly disposed onto one surface of the base member (150), an anus heater (145) located at one side of the interior of the anus spray housing (110) in such a way as to emit heat under the control of the controller (130), an anus blower (146) disposed close to the anus heater (145) at the inside of the anus spray housing in such a way as to blow air toward the anus heater under the control of the controller, and an anus supply pipe (151) having one end connected to the anus spray housing and the other end connected to the anus spray hole to allow the outside air or hot air to be supplied to the anus spray hole ([0042-0043], Fig. 3); spray housing is a sub-housing of covering member (110) when fixed to base member (150); covering member includes back door (111) access to anus spray housing at middle part of covering member [0036]; anus blower (146) blows air through anus heater or heating pipe (145), filter, and anus supply pipe (151).
PNG
media_image3.png
700
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWANE COLLARD whose telephone number is (571)272-6553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-6 pm.
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, Ben Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/DWANE COLLARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796