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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “supple” in line 6 should be –supply--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: --a—should be added before the phrase “fan-shaped nozzle” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the at least one distribution nozzle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The at least one distribution nozzle is introduced in claim 13 but claim 15 does not share dependency with claim 13. Accordingly, the term lacks antecedent basis. Recommend removing “the” to introduce at least one distribution nozzle for claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by JP 2004 267491, using attached machine translation, (hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of WO 2007/105492, using attached machine translation, (hereinafter Katsumi).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a sauna comprising: a sauna cabin (SR) having at least one wall (“wall” par. 19) and a ceiling (SRa); a sauna oven (20); at least one sauna bench (BN) with at least one sitting place (note users illustrated in fig. 1); a place (note direction of airflow MS in fig. 1 towards the user in the sitting place), wherein the air blast nozzle produces an air blast that impacts at least a section of the sitting place and a space above the sitting place (note direction of airflow in MS in fig. 1 towards the user in the sitting place with arrows directed both towards and above the bench).
Yamamoto fails to show the air supply is a compressed air supply. Attention is turned to Katsumi in the same field of endeavor of steam sauna cabins which teaches using a compressed air pump (5) to dispense a steam mist to a user of a sauna cabin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the pump of Yamamoto to be a compressed air pump to provide a strong mist to a user to ensure the steam adequately reaches the user as evidenced by the teachings of Katsumi.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising an automatic infusion device (1) that distributes liquid (W) on a stone bed (ST) of the sauna oven.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto fails to show the specific angle of the air nozzle blast direction relative to the horizontal and thus fails to show between 15 and 75 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto would work equally well within the claimed range as the nozzle shape is slightly angled in reference to the horizontal (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate angle depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select between 15 and 75 degrees would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto fails to show the specific distance between a front edge of the sitting place facing the air blast nozzle and the air blast nozzle is at least 1 m. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto would work equally well within the claimed range given the typical size of sauna cabins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate distance depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select at least 1 m would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto shows the air blast nozzle (2A) is a fan-shaped nozzle with at least three openings arranged in a line (defined between adjusting plates (9) (fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Katsumi shows the supply pressure is ‘about 0.1MPA’ (par. 37). Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto as modified by Katsumi would work equally well within the claimed range as such a range would still produce an adequate mist flow rate for the desired target. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate pressure depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select at between 2 and 8 bar would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamato fails to show wherein the air blast nozzle has a spray angle in a vertical direction between 5 to 40 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto would work equally well within the claimed range as the nozzle shape is slightly angled in reference to the vertical direction (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate angle depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select between 5 and 40 degrees would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto shows wherein the air blast nozzle (2A) is arranged on or in the ceiling (SRa) within a projected area of the sauna oven (20) onto the ceiling or is arranged within a maximal horizontal distance to the projected area of 1 m (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto shows wherein a torso and upper legs of an average sized user sitting at the sitting place is impacted by the air blast, wherein a head of the average sized user sitting at the sitting place is not impacted by the air blast of the air blast nozzle assigned to the sitting place (fig. 1 shows a sitting place where a head of the user would not be affected by the air blast nozzle in the uppermost sitting bench).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto shows wherein the compressed air supply comprises a heating unit (the sauna stove 20 pre-heats the air before it is drawn into the device (1)) to preheat the compressed air before the compressed air supply supplies the compressed air to the at least one air blast nozzle.
Regarding 11, Yamamoto shows the air blast nozzle is at least 5 degrees pivotable in the vertical direction (via adjusting plates 9).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto shows at least two sauna benches of the at least one sauna bench (fig 1 shows two benches), wherein each of the at least two sauna benches comprise at least two sitting places (a user is shown on each bench, fig. 1) and wherein each sitting place is assigned one of the at least one air blast nozzle (the air blast nozzle (2A) serves both sitting places).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto shows a method for performing an automatic infusion ceremony for a sauna according to claim 2, the method comprising: pouring infusion liquid onto a stone bed of the sauna oven by the automatic infusion device, blasting ascending humidified air above the sauna oven towards the at least one sitting place by the at least one air blast nozzle on or in a ceiling of the sauna cabin assigned to the at least one sitting place (par. 26), and under the modification in view of Katsumi would be considered ‘blasted’ due to the air supply being compressed.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto fails to show the specific angle of the air nozzle blast direction relative to the horizontal and thus fails to show between 20 and 60 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto would work equally well within the claimed range as the nozzle shape is slightly angled in reference to the horizontal (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate angle depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select between 20 and 60 degrees would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto shows wherein the air blast nozzle (2A) is a multi-channel flat fan nozzle (fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 18, Katsumi shows the supply pressure is ‘about 0.1MPA’ (par. 37). Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto as modified by Katsumi would work equally well within the claimed range as such a range would still produce an adequate mist flow rate for the desired target. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate pressure depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select at between 3 and 5 bar would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 19, Yamamato fails to show wherein the air blast nozzle has a spray angle in a vertical direction between 15 to 30 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto would work equally well within the claimed range as the nozzle shape is slightly angled in reference to the vertical direction (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate angle depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select between 15 and 30 degrees would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Katsumi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0287106, using attached machine translation (hereinafter Bemberg).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Yamamoto and Katsumi shows all in the instant invention as claimed as set forth above but fails to show further comprising at least one distribution nozzle arranged on or in a ceiling of the sauna cabin and in view of the at least one sitting place behind the at least one air blast nozzle assigned to the at least one sitting place, wherein the at least one distribution nozzle is attached to the compressed air supply and has a blow direction with an angle relative to the horizontal between 3 and 30 degrees or 5 and 20 degrees. Attention is turned to Bemberg in the same field of endeavor of sauna cabins which shows including a distribution nozzle (85) at a rear wall on the ceiling to distribute warm air throughout the cabin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a distribution nozzle to allow for more even heated air distribution in the cabin as evidenced by the teachings of Bemberg. Regarding the specific angle, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. Moreover, it appears that the device of Yamamoto as modified by Bemberg would work equally well within the claimed range as the nozzle shape is slightly angled in reference to the vertical direction (see fig. 2 of Bemberg). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate angle depending on a user’s needs as a matter of design consideration, and to select between 3 and 30 degrees or 5 and 20 degrees would fall within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamamoto and Katsumi fails to show further comprising the step of: after the pouring step but before the blasting step, distributing the ascending humidified air above the sauna oven in a ceiling air layer by at least one distribution nozzle. Attention is turned to Bemberg in the same field of endeavor of sauna cabins which shows including a distribution nozzle (85) at a rear wall on the ceiling to distribute warm air throughout the cabin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a distribution nozzle to allow for more even heated air distribution in the cabin as evidenced by the teachings of Bemberg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0024118 is directed to the state of the art sauna devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights