DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/973,837 - WALK IN BATH, filed on 12/9/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 8/13/26. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900).
Regarding Claim 1 Torres shows a walk in bath comprising: a shell (20, 30) defining a bathing area (60), the shell comprising: a floor (50), a front side wall (at 120) having an opening (at 120) therein, a rear side wall, a left side wall, a right side wall (40, Figs. 1, 3 & 4), and a seat (80) being above the floor and extending from one of the left side wall or the right side wall (Fig. 4), the seat comprising a seating surface (at 80); and a step (120) extending between the front side wall within the opening, the step positioned substantially parallel to the floor
a hinge (150) coupled to the front side wall (Fig. 4); and
a door (140) coupled to the hinge such that the hinge rotatably couples the door to the front side wall (Figs. 3-4), the door moveable relative to the shell between a closed position (Fig. 3), in which the door engages the opening in the front side wall, and an open position (Fig. 4), in which the door allows ingress into and egress from the bathing area through the opening, the hinge configured to facilitate rotation of the door inward into the shell when moving from the closed position to the open position (Fig. 4);
wherein, when the door is in the closed position, the door is sealably engaged with the step (door engages with the inner vertical side of the step 120 at 130).
Regarding Claim 8 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, wherein: the door comprises: a hinge side (at 150) disposed along a first plane for a first length (Fig. 4), and a handle side (410; Fig. 11; ¶ [0042]) disposed along a second plane for the first length, the second plane being parallel to the first plane; and the hinge is coupled to the hinge side (Figs. 3-4 & 11).
Regarding Claim 15 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, wherein the opening comprises: a first portion contiguous with an inner surface of the front side wall, the first portion having a first width, and a second portion contiguous with an outer surface of the front side wall, the second portion having a second width, the second width being less than the first width (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, wherein: the shell further comprises a deck (120) at a top of the front side wall, a top of the rear side wall, a top of the left side wall, and a top of the right side wall, the deck being above the seat; and a top of the deck and a top of the door are coplanar when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 20 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, wherein: the shell further comprises a deck (120) at a top of the front side wall, a top of the rear side wall, a top of the left side wall, and a top of the right side wall, the deck being above the seat; and the door does not overlap the deck when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 4 & 7).
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Brunelle et al. (US 9,326, 326).
Regarding Claim 6 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, but fails to further show a heating element that is configured to selectively heat [[the from the]][[sic] one of the left side wall or the right side wall independently of water in the walk in bath. However, Brunelle shows a heating element (11, 12) that is configured to selectively heat one of the left side wall or the right side wall independently of water in the walk in bath (Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torres to include a heating element that is configured to selectively heat one or the left or right side wall independently of water in the bath as shown by Brunelle for the purpose of keeping the user warm while water is draining from the bath.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Brunelle et al. (US 9,326, 326) in further view of Mardan et al. (US 7,454,807).
Regarding Claim 7 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 6, wherein: the shell further comprises a deck (120) at a top of the front side wall, a top of the rear side wall, a top of the left side wall, and a top of the right side wall, the deck being above the seat (Fig. 4 & 7); but fails to show the heating element is further configured to selectively heat a head portion of the deck and a neck portion of the deck that are adjacent to the one of the left side wall or the right side wall. However, Torres as combined with Brunelle shows a heating element that can selectively heat a neck portion (11) and wall portions (12). Turning to Mardan. Mardan shows heating a deck portion (12) for the head and neck (15; headrest section; note, col. 4, lines 65-67). Therefore, because Torres as combined shows heating elements configured to selectively heat, and Mardan shows heating a head deck, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torres as combined to further include a heating element configured to selectively heat a head and neck portion of the deck as shown by Mardan for the purpose of purpose of keeping the user warm while water is draining from the bath.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Nozaki (US 4,998,946).
Regarding Claim 9 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, further comprising a seal member (170) located between the front side wall and the door when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 4), the seal member comprising: a first end; a second end; an intermediate hollow section extending between the first end and the second end (¶ [0011; 0013; 0048; 0049]), .
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Nozaki (US 4,998,946) in further view of Schenstrom (SE 437759 B).
Regarding Claim 10 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 9,
Regarding Claim 11 Torres as combined with Schenstrom shows the walk in bath of Claim 9, and further shows wherein the seat further comprises a drainage channel (13) comprising: a front portion disposed between the seating surface and the front side wall (13), the front portion sloping downwardly moving away from the one of the left side wall or the right side wall (it is shown that the drainage channels 13 tilt the angle beta) from the horizontal downwards to the lowest part of the bath at the drain. The angles ^ and ^ are on each side of the horizontal line through the intersection (line) of the seat 14 and the backrest); and a rear portion disposed between the seating surface and the rear side wall (the curved area where the seat and rear wall meet; shown best where 14 and 17 meet Fig. 5), the rear portion sloping downwardly moving away from the one of the left side wall or the right side wall (The seat of the seat tub leans backwards and the water that accumulates between the seat and backrest is drained into gutters at the sides of the seat towards the drain).
Claim(s) 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Metcalf (US Pub. 2005/0044620).
Regarding Claim 12 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 1, further comprising a handle (410; Fig. 11) rotatably coupled to the front side wall (¶ [0042] via the door), the handle movable relative to the front side wall between a first position, . But Torres fails to show a first position of the handle, in which the handle does not extend across the door and a second position in which the handle extends across the door when the door is in the closed position. However, Metcalf shows a walk in bath with a door handle (20) coupled to a front side wall, that rotates from a first position (Fig. 2), in which the handle does not extend across the door and a second position in which the handle extends across the door when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torres by substituting handle and latch mechanism for the door with that handle and latch shown by Metcalf in which the handle in a first position does not extend across the door and a second position in which the handle extends across the door when the door is in a closed position for the purpose of mounting the latch in the front side wall rather than the door for keeping the weight of the door lightweight and easily manipulated for elderly or infirm users.
Regarding Claim 16 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 15, further comprising a handle (410; Fig. 11) rotatably coupled to the front side wall (¶ [0042] via the door), the handle movable relative to the front side wall between a first position,
Regarding Claim 17 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 16, wherein the handle extends away from the one of the left side wall or the right side wall when the handle is in the second position (Fig. 2 as combined).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Metcalf (US Pub. 2005/0044620) in view of Nozaki (US 4,998,946).
Regarding Claim 13 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 12, further comprising a seal member (170) located between the front side wall and the door when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 4), the seal member comprising: a first end; a second end; an intermediate hollow section extending between the first end and the second end (¶ [0011; 0013; 0048; 0049]),
Regarding Claim 14 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 13, wherein the handle, the seal member, the door, and the front side wall are configured such that movement of the handle to the second position compresses the seal member between the front side wall and the door (¶ [0011, 0013, 0041]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US Pub. 2014/0201900) in view of Metcalf (US Pub. 2005/0044620) in view of Nozaki (US 4,998,946).
Regarding Claim 18 Torres shows the walk in bath of Claim 17, further comprising a seal member (170) located between the front side wall and the door when the door is in the closed position (Fig. 4), the seal member comprising: a first end; a second end; an intermediate hollow section extending between the first end and the second end (¶ [0011; 0013; 0048; 0049]), .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued preemptively with regard to Torres sealing with a step, the step being parallel to the floor. However, Torres shows a step parallel to the floor and Torres shows the door 140 sealing with the vertical inner wall of the step 120 at 130. The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the actual claim language as such, the rejection as shown above, meets the claim language in full and the 102 rejection to Torres has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jin (US Pub. 2016/0000272) shows the general state of the art of a walk in bath; Drozdowski et al. (US Pub. 2015/0190665) shows the general state of the art of using channels for water drainage.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID ANGWIN can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights