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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species VI, Figs. 22A and 22B in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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 “hose connection port” and “holding means” must be shown for the elected species VI, Figs. 23A and 23B or the feature(s) canceled from the claims 5 and 6. 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
Claim limitation “holding means” 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
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens (D330,261).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens teaches a soaking chair comprising: a riser (a foot attached to a leg of the chair) including a receptacle and a floor-contacting surface, wherein the riser is designed for use in a shower, and wherein the riser increases the height of the soaking chair.
Regarding claim 2, the soaking chair comprises one or more legs, wherein each leg has an end that rests on the ground, and wherein the riser receptacle accommodates the end of a leg.
Regarding claim 3, the riser receptacle is capable of accommodating the end of another riser.
Regarding claim 4, soaking apparatus comprising: a soaking surface and a support structure; wherein the apparatus is designed for use in a shower; and wherein the soaking surface is double-walled (the front lip or flange and an inner surface) and comprises a soaking reservoir.
Regarding claim 7, the soaking apparatus comprises a pluggable drain.
Regarding claim 8, the soaking reservoir allows soaking of at least a portion of a user's knee, ankle, foot, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, or combinations thereof.
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gesse (5,996,139)
Regarding claim 4, Gesse teaches a soaking apparatus 17 comprising: a soaking surface 1 and a support structure 11; wherein the apparatus is designed for use in a shower; and wherein the soaking surface is double-walled (the ridge and an inner surface) and comprises a soaking reservoir 3.
Regarding claim 7, the soaking apparatus comprises a pluggable drain 5.
Regarding claim 8, the soaking reservoir 3 allows soaking of at least a portion of a user's knee, ankle, foot, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, or combinations thereof.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (D330,261) in view of Williams (2022/0378253).
Regarding claims 5-6, Steven does not teach a hose connection port and a holding means for securing a water supply to the chair. Attention is directed to Williams which teaches a shower chair comprising a hose connection port 124 and a holding means (threading on the port 124) for securing a water supply 128 to the chair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Steven soaking apparatus to include a hose connection port and a holding means for securing a water supply to the chair view of the teaching of Williams for conveniently providing water to a user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (D330,261) in view of Libit (2013/0219609).
Stevens does not specifically disclose the soaking surface being rotomolded. Attention is directed to Libit which teaches a soaking device 1210 being fabricated from a plastic material using a roto-molding process (paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ a roto-molding process with Stevens soaking apparatus in view of the teaching of Libit to fabricate the soaking device.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesse (5,996,139) in view of Stevens (D330,261).
Regarding claims 1-2Gesse discloses a soaking chair 17 having a plurality of legs but does not specifically disclose a riser mounted on the end of each of the legs. Attention is directed to Stevens which teaches a soaking chair comprising legs and a riser mounted on each of the legs for increasing the height of the soaking chair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Gesse soaking chair to include a rise for each of the leg in view of teaching of Stevens for increasing the height of the soaking chair.
Regarding claim 3, the riser of Stevens includes a receptacle capable of accommodating the end of another riser.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesse (5,996,139) in view of Williams (2022/0378253).
Regarding claims 5-6, Gesse does not teach a hose connection port and a holding means for securing a water supply to the chair. Attention is directed to Williams which teaches a shower chair comprising a hose connection port 124 and a holding means (threading on the port 124) for securing a water supply 128 to the chair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Gesse soaking apparatus to include a hose connection port and a holding means for securing a water supply to the chair view of the teaching of Williams for conveniently providing water to a user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesse (5,996,139) in view of Libit (2013/0219609).
Gesse does not specifically disclose the soaking surface being rotomolded. Attention is directed to Libit which teaches a soaking device 1210 being fabricated from a plastic material using a roto-molding process (paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ a roto-molding process with Gesse soaking apparatus in view of the teaching of Libit to fabricate the soaking device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuether teaches a soaking chair having a soaking reservoir.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights