DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 8/21/26. Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 21, and 22 are currently pending. Claim 16 remains withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 2, 4 - 15, 21, and 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the drive mechanism” in line 7.
Regarding claim 2, “a drive mechanism” in line 2 is a double inclusion of the drive mechanism set forth in claim 1. It is unclear how many drive mechanisms are being claimed. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the drive mechanism of claim 2 refers to the one referenced in claim 1, however clarification of the record is required.
Regarding claim 21, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the drive mechanism” in line 7.
Regarding claim 22, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the drive mechanism in line 5. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the head rest” and “the seat assembly” in line 7.
The remaining claims are indefinite insofar as they depend from rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 109793446 hereinafter Lu) in view of Le May (US 10,524,619) and Wang (CN 113425180).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a bathtub system (fig. 1) comprising a bathtub housing (1), a pedestal (2) configured to support the housing (fig. 2); a seat assembly (inner contour of tub) including a headrest (4) and a plurality of sprayers (5, 12, 8, 10) mounted to the bathtub housing, wherein at least one of the sprayers (5) is at a position above the headrest (see fig. 2).
Lu, however, does not show that the seat is rotatable or adjustable. Attention is turned to Le May which teaches a similar tub (10) having a seat (100) with a head rest (102) which is rotatably adjustable (rollers 112, pivot rods 114, 118) such that panels of the seat may be adjusted relative to one another and the tub surface (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an articulable chair instead of a molded/formed in order to allow for customization by the user.
Lu also fails to show a chamber coupled to the pedestal as claimed. Attention is turned to Wang which teaches a similar tub a bathtub housing (2), a pedestal (1) configured to support the housing; and a chamber (11) coupled to the pedestal (fig. 3) and configured to hold water, wherein a weight of the chamber actuates (see attached machine translation, p. 5, last paragraph - p. 6, first paragraph), at least in part, a drive mechanism (19, 18). It would have been obvious to have provided a chamber/weight actuated cover like that taught by Wang in order to close the tub while it is being filled so that heat loss is reduced.
Regarding claim 4, Lu as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, with Wang further teaching that the chamber fill with water as a function of an inclination of the bathtub housing. See that the flat/180-degree orientation of enables the fill pipe (12) to appropriately provide water to the chamber (11).
Regarding claim 15, Lu as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further provides that the plurality of sprayers are the only fill device for the system. See figures and note that there are no additional taps or mixer/spouts illustrated. Note also that the water supply in the chamber (11) of Wang is the only fill device (from 14) to the tub body.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, Le May, and Wang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Hwang (KR 101405246).
Regarding claim 14, Lu as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a lock configured to secure the pedestal and bathtub housing at a predetermined position. Attention is turned to Hwang which teaches a similar rotatable tub having a pedestal (200) and a bathtub housing (100) with a locking system (330, 141) which maintains the inclination of the tub relative to the pedestal (machine translation, para. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have provided a locking system in the device of Lu so that the angle of the tub can be maintained during use.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Le May.
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses a bathtub system comprising: a bathtub housing (2), a pedestal (1) configured to support the housing; and a chamber (11) coupled to the pedestal (fig. 3) and configured to hold water, wherein a weight of the chamber actuates (see attached machine translation, p. 5, last paragraph - p. 6, first paragraph), at least in part, a drive mechanism (19, 18).
Wang does not show a rotatable seat assembly mounted to the housing and including a head rest. Attention is turned to Le May which teaches a similar tub (10) having a seat (100) with a head rest (102) which is rotatably adjustable (rollers 112, pivot rods 114, 118) such that panels of the seat may be adjusted relative to one another and the tub surface (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an articulable chair in order to allow for enhanced user comfort.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lu.
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses a Wang discloses a bathtub system comprising: a bathtub housing (2), a pedestal (1) configured to support the housing ; and a chamber (11) coupled to the pedestal (fig. 3) and configured to hold water, wherein a weight of the chamber actuates (see attached machine translation, p. 5, last paragraph - p. 6, first paragraph), at least in part, a drive mechanism (19, 18).
Wang does not show the particulars of the sprayers and headrest. Attention is turned to Lu which teaches a similar tub having bathtub housing (1), a pedestal (2) configured to support the housing (fig. 2); a seat assembly (inner contour of tub) including a headrest (4) and a plurality of sprayers (5, 12, 8, 10) mounted to the bathtub housing, wherein at least one of the sprayers (5) is at a position above the headrest (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to have provided sprayers and a seat with a headrest in order to enhance user comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 - 13 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 ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights