DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2024 is being considered in part by the examiner. Foreign reference #7 is not being considered, unless cited on the examiner’s 892, as no English translation has been found in the file wrapper.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 210, 310, 410, 451.
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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg 8, line 18: “during” should read –drying--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the legal phraseology “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As it appears the applicant is intending to remove all reference characters from the claims, the examiner notes that line 3 of claim 1 still includes reference characters for the base.
Claim 1, second to last line: “configurable” should read –configured—
Claim 12, second to last line: “drying means, a water heating” should read –drying means, and a water heating--
Claim 13, last line: “treats holder, a towel holder” should read --treats holder, and a towel holder—
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.
Claims 1, and 3-15 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the term “means” 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.
In accordance with the statute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element “a weight sensitive shower actuating means” in claims 1 and 3-15 is limited by the description in the specification. Specifically, “a weight sensitive shower actuating means” will be limited to its description in the specification as comprising a spring, hinge, joint or the like mechanism, which enables to open the water flow into the shower head and functional equivalents (Pg 6, last ¶).
In accordance with the statute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element “a drying means” in claim 12 is limited by the description in the specification. Specifically, “a drying means” will be limited to its description in the specification as a dryer (Pg 8, ¶3)
In accordance with the statute, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element “a water heating means” in claim 12 is limited by the description in the specification. The specification provides no structure associated with “water heating means” and therefore, as indicated in the 112(b) rejection below, the scope is unclear. The examiner suggests changing “water heating means” to “water heater” to obviate the need for 112(f) analysis, given a water heater is a known structure.
The examiner notes that the terms “height adjustable water distribution means” in claim 1 and “slipping prevention means” in claim 10 are not being interpreted under 112(f), despite including the term “means”, as the respective claims include sufficient recited structure associated with the terms to perform the recited functions.
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 and 3-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shower” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a shower head has been introduced previously.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the water tank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces a water tank, but claim 5 is not dependent on claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the water drain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 introduces a water drain, but claim 7 is not dependent on claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the water drain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 introduces a water drain, but claim 8 is not dependent on claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the first water outlet” and “the second water outlet” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 1 introduces “one or more first water outlets” and “one or more second water outlets”, it doesn’t specify a singular first/second water outlet, so when claim 8 recites the first/second water outlet, it is unclear which outlet of the one or more first/second water outlets the applicant is referring to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the water flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a weight sensitive shower actuating means configurable to start the shower based on a weight of the dog.” And claim 14 recites that the washing device “further comprises…a first actuator for starting the water flow automatically.” It is unclear, exacerbated by the antecedent issues, how the washing device may have both a weight sensitive shower actuating means and a first actuator, seemingly both configured to start the shower in the absence or near absence of human intervention.
Claim limitation “water heating means” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 108260541 A), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Zhang (CN 108260541 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang discloses a washing device for washing a dog (¶0008), wherein the washing device comprises:
a washing tray (see liquid collection tank 21, Fig 4, with the connected placement plate 4, Fig 5) comprising a base, one or more side walls and one or more first water outlets (see Fig 5; see inlet pipe 27, Fig 4);
a height adjustable water distribution means (spray pipe 9 with nozzles 13, Fig 5; height adjustable relative to the pet, as the platform 4 moves up/down; also height adjustable in that the entire system could hypothetically be moved up/down, therefore its height changing) comprising a first end connected to the washing tray and a second end positioned above the washing tray (see Fig 5), wherein the first end comprises a water inlet and the second end comprises a shower head (see Fig 5); and
wherein the base comprises a weight sensitive shower actuating means configurable to start the shower based on a weight of the dog (including the support rod with ball valve 10-12, placement plate 4, sleeve 2, slide rod 3, and first spring 5 – see Fig 5; functional language: capable of starting shower based on the weight of the dog on platform 4 – see ¶0046).
Zhang may be said to teach the height adjustable water distribution means, as best understood, given the height of the nozzles relative to the spray target may change based on the compression amount of the platform, or because the entire device could hypothetically be moved from a lower elevation to a higher elevation; however, alternatively, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the water distribution means of Zhang adjustable in height relative in order to allow for optimal spray strength/splash avoidance for animals/pets of various heights and sizes, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
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 1, 3-6, 9, and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 200340377 Y1), hereinafter referred to as Choi, in view of Zhang, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Choi discloses a washing device for washing a dog (¶10), wherein the washing device comprises:
a washing tray comprising a base, one or more side walls and one or more first water outlets (see annotated Fig 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
382
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a height adjustable water distribution means (bellows 7 with manual sprayer 8, Fig 2) comprising a first end connected to the washing tray and a second end positioned above the washing tray, wherein the first end comprises a water inlet and the second end comprises a shower head (see Fig 2); and
Choi fails to disclose wherein the base comprises a weight sensitive shower actuating means configurable to start the shower based on a weight of the dog.
Zhang discloses a washing device for washing a dog (¶0008), wherein the base of the washing tray comprises wherein the base comprises a weight sensitive shower actuating means configurable to start the shower based on a weight of the dog (placement plate 4, sleeve 2, slide rod 3, and first spring 5 – see Fig 5; see ¶0046).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the washing device of Choi such that the valve controlling water input into/out of the shower head was controllable through a weight sensitive shower actuating means, such that the shower was configured to start based on the weight of the dog, as in Zhang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Zhang the weight actuated mechanism helps reduce labor intensity, improve environmental protection, and save resources (¶0046), given water would not be wasted when the pet is not in the basin. Further, providing such a mechanism can allow the user to constantly have two hands available for cleaning and restraining the pet.
Regarding claim 3:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the height adjustable water distribution means is formed of wrinkled hose or telescopic tube (¶16 - “bellows”).
Regarding claim 4:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the washing tray comprises a water tank underneath the base (empty space within bathtub – see Fig 2 - ¶18).
Regarding claim 5:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the water tank comprises one or more second water outlets (hole which the drain cover 3 covers – see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the washing tray comprises a water drain (the tube formed below the first opening; see annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the second end of the height adjustable water distribution means comprises a joint connecting the shower head (see Fig 2 – Merriam Webster defines joint as “a place where two things or parts are joined”, this broad term is fulfilled by the space where the shower head 8 and the bellows 7 are joined).
Regarding claim 13:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the washing device further comprises one or more of a shampoo holder, a sponge holder, a brush holder, a treats holder, a towel holder (detergent container 4, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 14:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the washing device further comprises one or more actuators selected from a first actuator for starting the water flow automatically (ball valve 12, Fig 5; ¶0046) and a second actuator to adjust the height of the height adjustable water distribution means or an angle of the shower head automatically .
Regarding claim 15:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein at least one of a height and an angle of the shower head is adjustable according to a height and a size of the dog (¶16).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Byun (KR 101929679 B1, as cited on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter referred to as Byun, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Choi as modified fails to disclose wherein the water drain comprises a water valve.
Byun discloses a pet bath apparatus with a water drain comprising a water valve (valve 109, Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a water valve to the drain of Choi, as in Byun, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Byun, to allow for the selective opening and closing of the drain (Pg 4, ¶2), which would be helpful so as to soak an animal’s feet, and then drain away the dirty water afterwards.
Regarding claim 8:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Choi as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one of the water drain, first water outlet, and the second water outlet comprises a filter.
Byun discloses a pet bath apparatus with a drain having a filter therein (mesh portion 151, Figs 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a filter to the drain of Choi, as in Byun, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Byun, in order to collect foreign matter, such as dog hair (Pg 5, ¶8), and thereby help prevent clogging of the drain, or making of a mess wherever the pet bath is used.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nicholson (US 20160135428 A1, as cited on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter referred to as Nicholson, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Choi as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein a surface of the base is at least partially covered with slipping prevention means, wherein the slipping prevention means is a roughened surface or a surface comprising dots.
Nicholson discloses a pet bath wherein a surface of the base is at least partially covered with slipping prevention means, wherein the slipping prevention means is a roughened surface or a surface comprising dots (¶0075).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided slipping prevention means to a surface of the base of Choi, as in Nicholson, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Nicholson, such means helps improve the animal’s safety (¶0075).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Smith (US 5662069 A, as cited on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter referred to as Smith, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 11:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Choi as modified fails to disclose wherein the washing tray comprises height adjustable legs.
Smith discloses an animal bathing basin with height adjustable legs (legs 30, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted the basin of Choi on height adjustable legs, as in Smith, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to bathe the animal at a comfortable height without straining their back or having to squat down.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang (CN 205648654 U), hereinafter referred to as Wang, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Choi as modified fails to disclose wherein the washing device further comprises one or more of a drying means, a water heating means.
Wang discloses a pet bath apparatus including a drying means (dryer 5, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a drying means on the bath apparatus of Choi, as in Wang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow the pet to stay restrained in the basin during drying and would improve the convenience of the device, as the dryer would be in easy reach of the user for drying the animal after its bath.
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Peter (US 1696460 A), Nachtigall (US 2023/0122984), and Vogt (DE 2850862 A) which exhibit weight-activated shower means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights