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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments presented in claim(s) 1-20 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farley (US20200316632).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 16 and 18-20, Farley teaches a shower assembly comprising a shower head #12 (Figure 1) a manifold #18 [0029-34] having a bore/hollow inside that has an outward-facing open end that receives a filter #16. The filter #16 has a water inlet #44 and outlet #46 which are coplanar and axially aligned and positioned at an inner end of the manifold bore. As shown in figures 4 and 5, the manifold is downstream of the water source #14 and upstream and in fluid communication with the shower head #12. Note claim 19 utilizes and/or language and Farley has the filter coupled to a fixed shower head.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farley in further view of Sasaki (US6422484).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Farley does not teach the use of a shower bar.
However, Sasaki teaches (Figure 1) also teaches a shower apparatus that includes a shower head 1, and a slide bar 3, and a filter cartridge 7 (Col. 2, lines 33-57). The slide bar 3 is also described as a hollow bar which serves as the manifold that receives the water filter assembly (Abstract). Sasaki also teaches that the hollow bar is
configured to removably receive the water filter assembly (Col. 4, lines 64-65). Sasaki further teaches (Figure 1) that the hollow bar serves as a shower bar, wherein the manifold is positioned along the shower bar (col. 1, lines 55-60 and Col. 2, lines 33-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a shower bar in Farley as taught by Sasaki as utilizing a shower bar with the shower head can provide benefits of providing a grasp bar for a user (col. 1, line 40).
Regarding claim 14, it appears that Farley would have some type of in-wall valve assembly as the water pipe runs up the wall to the filter.
However, since it is silent as to the connection between the wall and the filter, Sasaki further teaches (Figure 1) that the shower apparatus is connected to a faucet 10 and is therefore associated with the in-wall valve assembly (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have a valve assembly associated with the manifold in Farley as taught by Sasaki in order to provide control of water flow.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farley (US20200316632) in further view of Chernov (US20180161711).
Regarding claims 5-7, Farley does not specifically teach the manifold/filter are positioned in the show head.
However, Chernov also teaches a shower head with filter (fig. 2), teaches that the manifold #110 which holds filter #130 can either be positioned within and/or mounted to (as shown in Farley) the shower head #10 [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present inventio to have placed the manifold/filter in the shower head of Farley as taught by Chernov because Chernov teaches that in the shower art a manifold/filter can be positioned within and/or mounted to a shower head.
Note that the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Additionally, the mere rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device are design choice and are not patentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farley (US20200316632) in further view of Mang (US8268168).
Regarding claims 8-13 and 15, Farley is silent as to the add-on filter unit, hand shower and diverter.
However, Mang, also a shower assembly with a filter, teaches (Figure 2) that the filter housing further comprises a shower holder 30 in addition to the filter core 20 wherein the shower holder 30 serves as a cradle for supporting a hand shower (Col. 3, lines 51-59). Mang further teaches (Figure 3) an actuating cap 1161 that determines the subsequent path of the filtered water towards either the suspended shower head or the
hand shower after exiting the filter core 20 (Col. 5, lines 34-40). The actuating cap 1161 serves as a diverter that is in fluid communication and downstream of the manifold. Mang further teaches (Figure 7) that the position of the actuating cap 1161 guides the filtered water towards either the hand shower 101A or the suspended shower head 104A, indicating that both shower heads are removably fluidly coupled to the actuating cap 1161 (Col. 6, lines 4-20). Mang teaches (Figure 2) a filter unit which serves as add-on water filter unit where the filter housing 10 serves as the manifold and connects the water supply to the shower head (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilize a shower holder and hand shower which would require a diverter valve in Farley as taught by Mang in order to provide additional functionality to the shower, such as to allow for handicap/injury related use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley in further view of Patterson (US2010/0043135).
Regarding claim 17, Farley teaches (Figure 2) a filter but does not teach that the water filter assembly also comprises a magnetic material.
Patterson teaches (Figure 2) the use of magnets 38 to secure the showerhead 18 to the showerhead assembly (Page 1, paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the use of magnets as seen in Patterson to the apparatus of Farley as described for claim 1 to securely hold the shower head to the shower assembly.
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 JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights