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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: --a a—should be replaced with “a” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: --swinging end portion is swing down—should be replaced with “swinging end portion swings down” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: --belt—should be replaced with “belts” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: --holding supported—should be replaced with “holding supporter” in line 8 and --a a—should be replaced with “a” in line 12. 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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 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 9 recites the limitation "said bracing arm" in line 1 and “said stopper arm” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said bracing ram" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an edge sleeve and at two fixing ribs” the limitation is unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said two top brackets" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "ops of said second longitudinal bars" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15, 17, and 19 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 12, 14, 15 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,302,858. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mu (US 2019/0375539) in view of Kay et al. (US 9527448 henceforth Kay).
Regarding claim 1, Mu teaches A bath rack for pet bathing, comprising: a rack body (folding support frame 10, fig. 1); a bathtub disposed on said rack body (foldable container body 30, fig. 1) but fails to teach a foldable ladder pivotally mounted to said rack body, wherein said foldable ladder is moved between an unfolded state for allowing the pet to enter said bathtub through said foldable ladder and a folded state in which said foldable ladder is folded and pivotally moved to a position under said bathtub. However, Kay teaches a foldable ladder pivotally mounted to a body (retractable stair system 54, col. 13, ll. 9-14, fig. 25), wherein said foldable ladder is moved between an unfolded state (fig. 4) and a folded state in which said foldable ladder is folded (fig. 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mu’s elevated bath with a ladder as taught by Kay to allow an animal to walk up to the foldable container body to prevent undue stress placed on a pet owner’s body when having to lift a pet into the container body. Regarding “and pivotally moved to a position under said bathtub” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the retractable stair system under the foldable container body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, positioning the retractable stairs under the foldable container body would conserve the amount of space needed to house the system when not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11, 13, and 16 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm EST.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647