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 filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the figures depict that the opening of the foot rinsing frame intersects with the rinsing area to which the Examiner disagrees. Applicant has argued that the figures indicate reference P1 which indicates the plane of the opening allegedly intersecting with the rinsing area at angle alpha.
Applicant’s response cites from their specification that “first and second edges 72a, 72b have first and second lower ends 74a, 74b at the level of the rinsing area 16”. This does not establish that the opening intersects the rinsing area but that the rinsing area bounds/delimits the opening. Applicant cites reference 16 as indicating the rinsing area and has amended claim 16 to define a “horizontal plane that is parallel to the rinsing area” however Figure 4 depicts a slope area at the region indicated by reference 16.
Applicant has argued that their ‘edges’ are the curved pipe/arm structures upon which the nozzles are formed and as such the edges are clearly defined and depicted to which the examiner disagrees. Applicant has argued that any point along their curved pipes/arms will be formed in a plane and a such their curved structure satisfies the language of the claim.
The claim language requires that the opening is delimited by two edges positioned “in a first plane” thereby establishing that the two edges are sharing a common plane with multiple nozzles formed in that plane opposing each other and per applicant’s response a common location/level. These edges define the ‘first plane’ which his used to limit the relative position of structures, spray directions, spray ‘components’ and angular relations. The figures at different times indicate different part of a tubular structure as the ‘edges’ however as the edges are defining a ‘plane’ from which other structures are defined the specific location of where the planar ‘edge’ is located must be defined.
Applicant has argued that the rinsing area is clearly defined however as discussed above the claim language requires an opening to intersect with the rinsing area and as such the planar base structure which delimits the bottom of the opening is not intersecting with the opening. Similarly Fig. 4 depicts that the rinsing area is not a flat planar surface but comprises either a ‘volume’ or an uneven surface.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the art directions:
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).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., what applicant considers an opening and the intended lay out of four nozzles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has argued that Stephan does not disclose an opening defined by two edges with nozzles positioned at a level of the edges/openings. It is noted that the nozzles of Stephan are mounted on a non-curved structure following the angular slant of the opening of the housing and as such a nozzle higher up would be at a level of the edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
305
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Due to the amended claim language and for the purpose of compact prosecution he opening of Stephan has been interpreted with the nozzle supply pipes forming the edges of the defined opening to the rising area beneath them and as such the nozzles are located at the edges and a level of the opening in so much as Applicant’s nozzles formed on their supply/mounting structure which defines the edges are. Stephan also discloses the nozzles are adjustable while Zhang teaches it is known to range such an adjustable nozzle for foot rinsing/washing above and below a plane parallel to a horizontal ground. The resultant modification resulting in the nozzles being mounted at the edges and configured to adjust their spray direction across the opening as desired/required for different users.
Applicants arguments (Pg. 11) regarding the intended function of their four rinsing nozzle arrangement to create ‘coordinate oppositional flow’ it is noted that the structures and functionality are not claimed and the prior art satisfies the claim language in so much as applicant’s invention does.
Applicant has cited this configuration to argue that their claimed invention “establishes a coordinated oppositional flow interaction” however Clain 14 only defines a first and second rinsing nozzle on opposing edges of an opening.
Claim 18 defines first and second pairs of nozzles at different levels however the claim indicates that each pair is “comprising first and second rinsing nozzles” which were defined in claim 14 and as such they are limited by all the limitations of the nozzles defined in claim 14.
The prior art combined teaches a rinsing device with an opening defined by opposing edges at an angle to a horizontal plane upon which at least two opposing adjustable rinsing nozzles are mounted and configured to spray fluid across said opening as well as above and below a horizontal plane. Stephan further states the provision of additional pairs of nozzles at different levels/heights which are still in the same plane as the edges/openings and satisfy the claim language and states that the motivation/purpose of the adjustable nozzles is to facilitate spraying water from all around the user’s foot for effective rinsing/cleaning supporting (Pg. 4).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 20 is dependent upon the alleged allowability of claim 14 which has been addressed above.
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:
A rinsing area with a horizontal surface
Applicant’s reference 16 indicates a region with a sloped surface
The edges of the opening (Claim 14)
Applicant’s claims require that structures be positioned in relation to an ‘edge’ of the opening and to direct fluid ‘across the opening’ toward an opposing edge however Applicant’s figures do not clearly define said edges and ‘edge’ as 72a/72b appear to indicate the entirety of the pipes/arms upon which the nozzles are formed
Applicant’s claims require specific angular and positional arrangements of components and features (fluid flow directions and ‘components’ of said flow directions) with respect to these edges however the pipes/arms which are indicated as being the ‘edges’ 72a/72b are round pipes. Fig. 4 indicates the top/exterior to the rinsing area is the edge, Fig. 3 indicates the entire arm/pipe structure and Fig. 2 indicates 72b is an interior surface of the pipe structure while 72a is an exterior of the pipe structure
A first rinsing nozzle, a second rinsing nozzle, a first drying nozzle and a second drying nozzle positioned all positioned at the same level on the first and second edges (Claim 14)
Claim 14 requires that first and second edges be provided such that they are positioned in a first plane forming an angle greater than 30 degrees with the rinsing area. Applicant’s response indicates that this ‘first plane’ which the opening is claimed as being positioned in, changes at every point along the opening/edges. The claim language defines the first rinsing and drying nozzle as being positioned “at a level of a first edge of the opening” so the same level with the same first plane, the remaining claim language requiring the first and second rinsing an drying nozzles to form specific angles together and to direct their flows to ‘the first edge’ and ‘the second edge’ require the nozzles at the same levels/edge regions
The defining bounds of the “flow of water direction” and “flow of air direction” and well as their ‘components’ directed to an opposing edge (Claim 14)
Is flow direction a direction as in a singular path traced from the nozzle or is applicant claiming a cone or spray shape with any part of it being considered the ‘flow of water direction’
The claims require that the first flow of water direction, the second flow of water direction, the first flow of air direction and the second flow of air direction forming with the first plane an angle less than 60 degrees which implies each flow is directed at a specific angle less than 60 degrees to the first plane. However the claim continues to further define the flows as having at least one specific ‘component’ which is directed toward the opposing edge
Claim 18 which depends from claim 14 requires two pairs of nozzles both limited by the language of claim 14 but wherein one pair has a component directed downward and an opposing component directed upward
The first and second air and water flow each having a directional component positioned at the edge of the opening where the nozzles are positioned at and directed across the opening parallel to the plane of the opening at that location directly toward the opposing edge (Claim 14, if this is what Applicant intends to claim)
Although the claim language does not require it, Applicant has argued that their language requires the nozzles be formed directly at the edge of the opening and direct their fluid flows at least partially directly across the opening between the edges/in parallel to the plane at that location
Applicant has not clearly defined what would be considered an exact ‘edge’ of the opening, Applicant’s opening is constantly curving and has not depicted a component of fluid or air sprays being directed exactly at the height of said edge and parallel with the plane of the edge at that location
The first flow of water direction, the second flow of water direction, the first flow of air direction and the second flow of air direction forming with the first plane an angle less than 60 degree with their common first plane together or separately (Claim 14)
First and second airflow directions which form an angle less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to a horizontal plane of the rinsing area and which is also less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to the plane P1 of the opening which is always 30 degrees or greater off/relative to the plane of the rinsing area (Claim 16)
First and second pairs of rinsing nozzles which satisfy the placement and angular direction requirements of claim 14 and wherein one of the pairs further has an upward component and a second pair having a downward component (Claim 18)
Opening which intersects with the rinsing area (Claim 15)
If the opening is delimited by the rinsing area then it doesn’t intersect with the rinsing area, in order to intersect with the rinsing area the opening would have to extend beyond/through the rinsing area such that the rinsing area is within the opening.
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 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 14-26 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation that the first and second water and airflow directions must be at an angle less than 60 degrees with the first plane, and the claim also recites that the first and second air and water flow directions have a component directed across the opening (0 degrees offset with the first plane) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 15-26 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 14
Claim 14 establishes that the rinsing and drying nozzles are formed on the ‘edges’ that define the opening and the ‘a first plane’ which is at least 30 degrees relative to a horizontal plane.
The claim then defines the fluid flows of the nozzles by requiring that “the first flow of water direction, the second flow of water direction, the first flow of air direction and the second flow of air direction forming, with the first plane, an angle less than 60 degrees”. The claim later defines these flow directions as having at least one ‘component’ directed across the opening toward an opposing edge which would require an angle difference between the spray direction component and the first plane as zero degrees.
While 0 degrees is less than 60 degrees, dependent claim 16 goes on to define the flow directions of having an angle less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to the first plane and less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to a horizontal plane that is parallel to the rinsing area.
The overall ‘direction’ of the flow has therefore been defined as less than 10 degrees relative to a horizontal plane and less than 10 degrees from a ‘first plane’ which itself is greater than 30 degrees relative to the horizontal plane while also having a ‘component’ which is 0 degrees off of the first plane which is at least 30 degrees offset from the horizontal plane. For the flow direction to be less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to the horizontal plane it would have to be at least 20 degrees away from the defined first plane. The component directed through the first plane would have to be at least 30 degrees offset from the horizontal.
It is unclear how a claimed flow direction at a specified angle, even if that angle can be selected from a range, can satisfy all limitations of the claim language. It is unclear how a spray direction would then have ‘a component’ directed in a completely different direction.
At best the ‘direction’ is not a limited and specified direction of the flow but is instead an undefined reference to ‘any portion of the spray cone/pattern from the nozzle is directed at/towards an angle’.
Due to the lack of clarity regarding what is required of the rinsing and drying nozzles in terms of placement, nozzle/outlet positioning and/or spray cone/pattern shape results in the scope of the claim being indefinite.
Claims 15-26 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 14.
For the purpose of examination any rinsing or drying nozzle with a spray cone/pattern with one or multiple ‘components’ (individual directions of the spray cone/pattern) which satisfies the claim language independently or jointly will be considered to satisfy the claim language.
Claim 16 requires that the air flow directions form an angle less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to the first plane and less than or equal to 10 degrees relative to a horizontal plane that is parallel to the rinsing area. The horizontal plane of the rinsing area is at least 30 degrees offset from the first plane meaning at the air flow directions have to both be at least 20 degrees away from the horizontal plane and within 10 degrees of the horizontal plane. It is unclear how the same flow direction can be 10 degrees or less relative to the horizontal plane and 10 degrees or less relative to the first plane and as such the scope of the claim is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 depends from claim 14. Claim 14 requires that the first and second flows of water are directed across the opening which also defines the claimed first plane.. As such claim 14 requires the water flow direction to form an angle of 0 degrees with respect to the first plane.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 14-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2314015 (Stephan) in view of KR 20040014051 (Chung) and CN 108042348 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 14, Stephan discloses a station for rinsing and drying at least one foot of a user, the station comprising:
a rinsing area (4, interior of structure, annotated figure below) positioned at ground level and sized to contain at least one foot of a user (Fig. 3);
PNG
media_image2.png
347
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least one structure mounted on the rinsing area (washing apparatus/structure),
a rinsing device (16/25A/25B/26A/26B) including at least one pair of rinsing nozzles (26A/26B) comprising a first rinsing nozzle and a second rinsing nozzle configured to project a flow of water respectively in first and second waterflow directions (Pg. 4; Fig. 1 – nozzles both in opposite directions towards the center of the rinsing area);
a drying device (15/23A/23B) including at least one pair of drying nozzles (23B) comprising a first drying nozzle and a second drying nozzle configured to project a flow of air respectively in first and second flow of air directions (Figs. 2, 4 – two nozzles on opposite sides each of which would have its own air flow direction);
wherein the at least one structure includes an opening (Annotated figure below, pipes 25a/25b form opposing edges of an opening into the area where water and air are discharged)
PNG
media_image3.png
294
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
delimited by at least two edges (25a/25b) positioned in a first plane forming an angle with the rinsing area (Figs. 1, 3; Annotated figure below) and on either side of a second plane (vertical plane dividing the device/rinsing area);
PNG
media_image5.png
312
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
353
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
said opening being sized to allow the passage of at least one foot of a user and at a short distance from the rinsing area (Fig. 3; Pg. 4; The opening opens into the rinsing area and so would be less than 15 cm from the rinsing area);
wherein the first rinsing nozzle is positioned at a level of a first edge of the opening and the second rinsing nozzle is positioned at a level of a second edge of the opening (Figs. 2, 3 – the nozzles are formed on the pipes defining the opening and so are positioned at the edge of the opening in so much as Applicant’s nozzles are);
wherein the first flow of water flows in a first direction having a component directed toward the second edge and the second flow of water direction having a component directed toward the first edge (Fig. 2 –first and second rinsing nozzles are positioned on opposite sides of the opening, are positioned along the height of each edge and are directed inwards/towards the opposing edge of the opening and as such have a component directed toward the opposing edge).
Stephan discloses an angled opening with respect to the rinsing area to facilitate insertion of a user’s foot but is silent regarding the angle of the first plane of the opening with respect to the rinsing area. Instead Stephan discloses that the angle of the first plane/opening with respect to the horizontal/ground (and as such the rinsing area) is acute (Fig. 3).The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stephan by forming the angle of the opening/edges with respect to the ‘rinsing area’/a horizontal plane 30 degrees or greater. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (anything greater than 30 degrees) and it appears that the device of Stephan would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
While Stephan discloses the rinsing nozzles as being adjustable it does not explicitly disclose details of their spray such as if the direction of their spray is adjustable or to what extent they are adjustable (Pg. 4). Stephan discloses rinsing nozzles and drying nozzles with the rinsing nozzles at a level with first and second edges of the opening as previously discussed however it discloses the drying nozzles as being at a different edge to the rinsing nozzles and only directed towards a rear of the rinsing area.
Chung teaches a station (10) for washing and drying at least one foot comprising a rinsing area (Fig. 3 – interior) and provided with a rinsing device (90/91) and a drying device (100/101). The rising device and the drying device both comprise a plurality of nozzles positioned around the rinsing area (Fig. 3). Wherein both the rinsing nozzles and the drying nozzles are arranged together at the same level in the rinsing area with respect to an opening into the rinsing area and at multiple locations (Fig. 3). The rinsing and drying nozzles are also provided at different levels of the rinsing area including proximate a bottom of the rinsing area and proximate an upper opening to the rinsing area (Fig. 3). The rinsing and drying nozzles are positioned next to each other around the perimeter of the rinsing area and spray toward a center of the rinsing area resulting in multiple drying nozzles having different spray with respect to each other (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of drying nozzles at the same locations around the opening as the rinsing nozzles, as taught by Chung, so as to ensure proper drying of a user’s foot including the sides and back as well as to ensure drying is performed at least as high up the foot/leg of a user as rinsing is provided.
Zhang teaches a rinsing station for a user’s feet comprising a plurality of nozzles (2) whose housing/structure are attached to walls (edges) (11/13/14) of a basin (1) at an orientation perpendicular to a rinsing area (Fig. 2, bottom of basin). Zhang further teaches that the nozzles are configured to be angularly adjusted to facilitate adjusting the directional components of the fluid spray in a chosen flow direction as required/desired by different users including directing at least a directional component of the spray above the horizontal/parallel with the rinsing area (Fig. 6) so as to better service different users with different bodies and needs/desires (Specification; Figs. 4 and 6 depict the adjustment in the flow direction angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure adjustable nozzles to also provide control over the directional components of the spray, as taught by Zhang, so that they can be positioned throughout an angular range of flow directions as required/desired by a user.
The modification of Stephan’s adjustable nozzles to ensure the spray direction is also adjustable/being adjusted and the covering/enclosure of Stephan’s rinsing area would result in the spray nozzles being adjustable into position such that at least one directional component of their spray extends across the opening to the opposing edge.
Regarding the claim limitation that the first and second water and water flow directions form an angle less than 60 degrees with respect to the first plane, the combination of Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang results in drying and rinsing nozzles being located on opposing sides of the opening in the first plane and being angularly adjustable. As such the combination would be configured to have the nozzles with spray directions set at an angle less than 60 degrees from the first plane and/or with spray cones/patterns which together form at least an angle less than 60 degrees from the first plane.
Regarding claim 15, the opening of Stephan intersects the rinsing area (Fig. 1, annotated figure below; In so much as Applicant’s invention achieves this as the opening is the boundary to the rinsing area/the rinsing area bounds/delimits the opening plane).
PNG
media_image7.png
347
518
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang is silent regarding the angle of the air direction with respect to the opening and rinsing areas. Instead Stephan states that the direction of airflow is intended to dry a user’s feet within the rinsing area after rinsing while Zhang teaches nozzle direction adjustability. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang by configuring the drying nozzles to dispense an airflow in a direction which forms, relative to a horizontal plane parallel with the rinsing area an angle less than or equal to 10 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle and it appears that the device of Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angle.
Regarding claim 17, as previously discussed Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang teaches the formation of adjustable nozzles configured to direct at least a component of their fluid flow in a direction across the opening to an opposing edge and as such would result in and angle with respect to the first plane of less than or equal to 10 degrees as across the opening/plane is 0 degrees.
Regarding claim 18, as previously discussed Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang teaches the formation of nozzles with directionally adjustable sprays that can be directed horizontally, upwardly or downwardly. Stephan further states that each of the first and second pair of rinsing nozzles comprises a first rinsing nozzle and a second rinsing nozzle (Figs. 2 and 3, annotated figure below – each nozzle arm 25A/25B comprises multiple nozzles 26A/26B with the nozzles at different levels following the slope of the angled opening).
PNG
media_image8.png
423
471
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Stephan states that the first and second edges, the first and second pair of rinsing nozzles and the first and second drying nozzles are positioned in a symmetrical manner relative to a plane of vertical symmetry (Fig. 2) while Chung, as previously discussed, teaches the formation of multiple rinsing and spraying nozzle on opposing sides. As such the modification of Stephan in view of Chung would result in the first and second edges, the drying nozzles and the rinsing nozzles being positioned in a symmetrical manner relative to a plane of vertical symmetry.
Regarding claim 21, Stephan states the inclusion of a blower (15) that is electrically driven and feeds the first and second drying nozzles with air (Pg. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Stephan further states the inclusion of a drinking fountain having a water spout (32) and a waste water receptacle (30), the drinking fountain mounted on the at least one structure of the station (Fig. 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Chung and Zhang as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2010/0043137 (Zavan).
Regarding claim 20, Stephan states the inclusion of a control unit (14) for controlling the rinsing and drying nozzles however it doesn’t explicitly state if the rinsing nozzles and drying nozzles can be selectively operated.
Zavan teaches a station (1) for washing and drying the foot of a user comprising a rinsing assembly comprising a rinsing pump (82) and a rinsing nozzle (41), a drying assembly comprising a blower (101) and a drying nozzle (102). Zavan further teaches that a control unit (50/52/53) is configured for selectively activating the drying assembly and the rinsing assembly as well as other functions to facilitate managing the functions as desired by a user (Para. 0099-0102, 0106, 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control unit to selectively command rinsing and drying, as taught by Zavan, to facilitate a user being able to extend and/or shorten either the rinsing duration and/or the drying duration as desired/required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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