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 2-7 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble does not match the preamble of the independent claim; i.e. circulator vs. apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation "said at least one stationary stator blade." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A stator blade has been previously recited, but it has not been described as “stationary.” Accordingly it is unclear whether this is the same or different stator blade being referenced. For the purpose of examination it is being treated as the same stator blade. Clarification is required. Claims 2-7 and 9-13 will inherit this same issue since they depend from the rejected claim.
The term “easily” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” 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. Specifically, there is no quantifiable way to determine what is considered “easy” as what is “easy” for one user might not be for another. Accordingly, the scope of the claim language cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite. Claims 10-13 inherit this issue as they depend from the rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0000710 (hereinafter Luong).
Regarding claim 1, Luong discloses a circulator (100) for use with an associated imperforate footbath which comprises: a perforate cover (200) having an outlet port (212), a base (202) secured to said cover having at least one upstanding stator blade (formed by 338, 336, 340) intermediate said base and said cover and aligned with said outlet port (par. 60), an impeller (232) is mounted for rotation with respect to said base intermediate said base and said cover (fig. 4, par. 60), said impeller including at least one radially extending blade (236), said impeller including a part thereof that is manufactured of a ferromagnetic material whereby said impeller will rotate when a rotating coaxial magnetic material is disposed proximate to said impeller with magnetic engagement between said ferromagnetic material to cause said impeller to rotate (par. 55); said radially extending blade directing water against said at least one stationary stator blade during each rotation whereby water is directed against at least said one stator blade and ejected from said outlet port upon impact with said stationary stator blade (par. 60).
Regarding claim 2, Luong discloses wherein said cover (200) has a spherical section shape (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Luong discloses wherein said cover includes an inlet (216) proximate to the geometric center (224) of said cover.
Regarding claim 4, Luong discloses wherein said outlet port (212) is proximate to the periphery of said cover (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Luong discloses the apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein said perforate cover (200) has a spherical section shape (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Luong discloses a circulator (100) for use with an associated imperforate foot bath which comprises: a perforate cover (200) having an outlet port (212), a base (202) having a first face (246) dimensioned and configured for engagement with said perforate cover, said base having at least one upstanding stator blade (formed by 338, 336, 340) intermediate said first face of said base (246) and said cover (200) and said one upstanding stator blade being aligned with said outlet port (212) (fig. 3), an impeller (232) mounted for rotation with respect to said base intermediate said base and said cover (fig. 4, par. 60), said impeller including at least one radially extending blade (236), said impeller including a part thereof that is manufactured of a ferromagnetic material whereby said impeller will rotate when a rotating coaxial magnetic material is disposed proximate to said impeller with magnetic engagement between said ferromagnetic material to cause said impeller to rotate (par. 55); said radially extending blade when rotating directing a liquid against said at least one stationary stator blade during each rotation whereby a liquid is directed against at least said one stator blade and ejected from said outlet port upon impact with said stationary stator blade (par. 60).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luong in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0246820 (hereinafter Huynh).
Regarding claim 5, Luong contemplates adding an aroma or fragrance to the foot bath to produce an aromatic effect for users of the associated foot bath (par. 43) but fails to recite it is disposed intermediate said impeller and said base. Attention is turned to Huynh in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which shows including a fragrant packet in a chamber in between a base (24) and a cover (30) (par. 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Luong to include an aroma packet disposed intermediate the impeller and the base as a convenient location for distributing the fragrance to a user as evidenced by the teachings of Huynh.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luong in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0034493 (hereinafter Park) and Huynh.
Regarding claim 6, Luong contemplates adding an aroma or fragrance to the foot bath to produce an aromatic effect for users of the associated foot bath (par. 43) but fails to recite a coloring substance disposed intermediate said impeller and said base to achieve an aesthetic color impression. Attention is turned to Park in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which teaches using a coloring agent with a fragrance to provide a color effect to a foot bath (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a coloring substance with the fragrance of Luong to provide a visually pleasing experience for the user. Regarding the particular location, attention is turned to Huynh in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which shows including a fragrant packet in a chamber in between a base (24) and a cover (30) (par. 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Luong to include an aroma and coloring substance packet disposed intermediate the impeller and the base as a convenient location for distributing the fragrance and coloring agent to a user as evidenced by the teachings of Huynh.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luong in view of US Patent 8,646,122 (hereinafter Ton).
Regarding claim 9, Luong fails to show wherein said base and said perforate cover are joined by a flexible hinge whereby said perforate cover and said base are ‘easily’ aligned for ease of assembly. Attention is turned to Ton in the same field of endeavor of foot spa baths which shows using a living hinge to connect a cover (18c) to a base (18) (col. 4, ln. 32-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the circulator of Luong to utilize a flexible hinge to prevent the cover from being lost when removed as evidenced by the teachings of Ton.
Regarding claim 10, under the modification in view of Ton, Ton shows using the same material for the cap (18c), hinge and base (18) (col. 4, ln. 32-34). “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process” (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, a molding process would product the same product of a base, cover, and hinge being made from the same material.
Regarding claim 11, Luong shows wherein said cover (200) has a spherical section shape (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luong and Ton as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Huynh.
Regarding claim 12, Luong contemplates adding an aroma or fragrance to the foot bath to produce an aromatic effect for users of the associated foot bath (par. 43) but fails to recite it is disposed intermediate said impeller and said base. Attention is turned to Huynh in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which shows including a fragrant packet in a chamber in between a base (24) and a cover (30) (par. 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Luong to include an aroma packet disposed intermediate the impeller and the base as a convenient location for distributing the fragrance to a user as evidenced by the teachings of Huynh.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luong and Ton as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Park and Huynh.
Regarding claim 13, Luong contemplates adding an aroma or fragrance to the foot bath to produce an aromatic effect for users of the associated foot bath (par. 43) but fails to recite a coloring substance disposed intermediate said impeller and said base to achieve an aesthetic color impression. Attention is turned to Park in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which teaches using a coloring agent with a fragrance to provide a color effect to a foot bath (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a coloring substance with the fragrance of Luong to provide a visually pleasing experience for the user. Regarding the particular location, attention is turned to Huynh in the same field of endeavor of foot treatment basins which shows including a fragrant packet in a chamber in between a base (24) and a cover (30) (par. 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Luong to include an aroma and coloring substance packet disposed intermediate the impeller and the base as a convenient location for distributing the fragrance and coloring agent to a user as evidenced by the teachings of Huynh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 10,278,894 is directed to the state of the art of magnetic impeller spa assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754