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
The response filed on May 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. One page of amended specification and five pages of amended claims were received on 5/12/2026. The specification has been amended such that it is no longer objected to. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 18 have been cancelled.
The claims have been amended such that the drawings are no longer objected to. Furthermore, the claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 1/14/206. However, pending Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 17, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below and pending Claims 3, 9, 12-13, and 15-16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Channel Shape Species A, and User Activated Mechanism Species A in the reply filed on 9/22/2025 is acknowledged. Furthermore, applicant's election with traverse of Shower Head Base Configuration Species B, in the reply filed on 9/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6-7, which are now cancelled, were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement between Shower Head Base Configuration Species A and B in the reply filed on 9/22/2025, in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/21/2025. The examiner responded to the traversal in the office action mailed 1/14/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “user-activated mechanism” in Claims 1, 17, and 20, which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “user-activated mechanism” in Claims 1, 17, and 20 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0064 of the Specification which states, “The user-activated actuator may include, for example, one or more of a push button, a lever, a rotary dial, or a combination thereof”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “user-activated mechanism” in Claims 1, 17, and 20 to be a push button, a lever, a rotary dial, or a combination thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,776,357 B1 to Naito (“Naito”).
As to Claim 1, Naito discloses a shower head (See #1 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a shower head base (#3);
a shower face (#5, which can be the shower face shown in Fig. 15B per Col. 9 Lines 33-35 and is flat with an even thickness as disclosed in Col. 4 Lines 19-21) removably mounted to the shower head base (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32), the shower face comprising a plurality of channels (#H) configured to deliver a spray (See Col. 4 Lines 5-10), each channel of the plurality of channels comprising openings on opposite sides of the shower face (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 15B, each channel #H has an inlet opening on a left side of #5 and an outlet opening on a right side of #5); and
a user-activated mechanism (#6, which is shown in Fig. 2 with threads, thus #6 is equivalent to a rotary dial that can be rotated when screwed to #3 or unscrewed from #3) configured to remove the shower face from the shower head base to allow customization of the spray from the shower head (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32 disclosing that #6 can be removed to replace #5, thus #6 can be unscrewed from #3 to remove #5 from #1 to replace #5 with another component shown in Figs. 15A, 15C, 16A, 16B, and 16C to customize a spray from #1),
wherein the shower face is mountable to the shower head base with either side facing away from the shower head base and the spray of the shower head is dependent upon which side of the shower face is facing away from the shower head base (See Fig. 2 and See Fig. 15B. The flat shower face #5, with the embodiment shown in Fig. 15B is constructed such that it is capable of being mounted to #3 with either an upper side or a lower side of #72 facing away from #3 such that the spray of #1 depends on which direction #72 is mounted).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above, Naito further discloses wherein the shower face is replaceable with a different shower face comprising a different plurality of channels, wherein the different plurality of channels are configured to deliver a pressure boosting spray from the shower head based on a shape and pattern of the different plurality of channels (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32 disclosing that #6 can be removed to replace #5 and See Figs. 15A, 15C, 16A, 16B, and 16C showing different types of shower faces. Therefore, shower face #5 of shower head #1 is capable of being replaced with a different shower face such as the shower face shown in Fig. 16B that has a different plurality of channels that can deliver a spray with a boosted pressure from the shower head as disclosed in disclosed in Col. 9 Lines 9-13 due to the a shape and pattern of the different plurality of channels H.).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above, Naito further discloses wherein the plurality of channels of the shower face extend from a first side of the shower face to a second side opposite the first side, and each channel of the plurality of channels is formed by a first opening in the shower face on the first side and a second opening in the shower face on the second side (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 15B).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 5 above, Naito further discloses wherein when a first side of the shower face is directed away from the shower head base, the shower face is configured to deliver the spray in a pressure boosting mode, and when a second side of the shower face opposite the first side is directed away from the shower head base, the shower face is configured to deliver the spray in a coverage boosting mode (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 15B, water will flow from the first opening out of the second opening such that water will diverge and spread with a boosted spray coverage compared to if the shower face were flipped).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above, Naito further discloses wherein the plurality of channels comprise one or more sets of channels that have a same channel shape (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 15B showing each channel H with a same shape).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above, Naito further discloses wherein the plurality of channels are shaped and patterned across the shower face for achieving a pressure mode that is dependent on which side of the shower face is facing away from the shower head base (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 15B. If the shower face shown in Fig. 15B is flipped relative to #3, a pressure of fluid dispensed out of #1 from channels #H will change due to the shape of the channels #H shown in Fig. 15B).
As to Claim 17, Naito discloses a shower head modular assembly (See #1 in Fig. 1. Per Col. 3 Lines 30-32, #6 can be removed and #5 can be replaced, thus #1 is modular as it is made up of different replaceable components), comprising:
a shower head base (#3);
one or more shower faces (See #5 in Fig. 2 and See Figs. 15A-16C showing different types of shower faces. #5 in Fig. 2 can be the shower face shown in Fig. 16B, which can be flat with an even thickness as disclosed in Col. 4 Lines 19-21) configured to be to removably mounted to the shower head base (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32), each shower face of the one or more shower faces comprising a plurality of channels (#H) configured to deliver a spray (See Col. 4 Lines 5-10) and extend between openings on opposite sides of each shower face (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 16B); and
a user-activated mechanism (#6, which is shown in Fig. 2 with threads, thus #6 is equivalent to a rotary dial that can be rotated when screwed to #3 or unscrewed from #3) for dismounting a shower face of the one or more shower faces mounted to the shower head base to allow customization of the spray exiting the one or more shower faces (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32 disclosing that #6 can be removed to replace #5, thus #6 can be unscrewed from #3 to remove #5 from #1 to replace #5 with another component shown in Figs. 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, and 16C to customize a spray from #1),
wherein at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is configured to be removably mounted to the shower head base with either side facing away from the shower head base such that the spray of the at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is dependent upon which side of the at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is facing away from the shower head base (See Fig. 2 and See Fig. 15B. The flat shower face #5, with the embodiment shown in Fig. 15B is constructed such that it is capable of being mounted to #3 with either an upper side or a lower side of #72 facing away from #3 such that the spray of #1 depends on which direction #72 is mounted).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the modular assembly of Naito as applied to Claim 17 above, Naito further discloses wherein when a first side of at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is directed away from the shower head base, the at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is configured to deliver the spray in a pressure boosting mode (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 16B. If #1 is assembled with a first side of the shower face shown in Fig. 16B directed away from #3, a pressure of fluid coming out of #H will be boosted due to #H narrowing per Col. 9 Lines 9-13), and when a second side of the at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces opposite the first side is directed away from the shower head base, the at least one shower face of the one or more shower faces is configured to deliver the spray in a coverage boosting mode (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 16B. If #1 is assembled with a second side of the shower face shown in Fig. 15B directed away from #3, a spray coverage of fluid coming out of #H will be increased due to #H widening).
As to Claim 20, Naito discloses a shower head modular assembly (See #1 in Fig. 1. Per Col. 3 Lines 30-32, #6 can be removed and #5 can be replaced, thus #1 is modular as it is made up of different replaceable components), comprising:
a shower head base (#3);
a shower face (See #5 in Fig. 2 and See Figs. 15A-16C showing different types of shower faces. #5 in Fig. 2 can be the shower face shown in Annotated Fig. 16C, which can be flat with an even thickness as disclosed in Col. 4 Lines 19-21) comprising a shower plate (See Annotated Fig. 16C) that comprises a plurality of channels (#H) for passing water (See Col. 4 Lines 5-10);
one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces (See Annotated Fig. 16C showing an intermediate piece that is capable of being exchanged in #1) comprising a plurality of nozzles (See Annotated Fig. 16C, holes in the intermediate piece are equivalent to nozzles that distribute fluid) that align with the plurality of channels of the shower face (See Annotated Fig. 16C and See Col. 9 Lines 14-20), each exchangeable intermediate piece of the one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces is configured to be removably mounted to the shower plate (See Fig. 2, Fig. 16C, and See Col. 3 Lines 30-32 disclosing that #6 can be removed to replace #5, thus #6 can be unscrewed from #3 to remove the intermediate piece from #1 and for the intermediate piece to be replaced with another component); and
a user-activated mechanism (#6, which is shown in Fig. 2 with threads, thus #6 is equivalent to a rotary dial that can be rotated when screwed to #3 or unscrewed from #3) for removing the shower face from the shower head base to allow customization of the spray exiting the shower face (See Col. 3 Lines 30-32 disclosing that #6 can be removed to replace #5, thus #6 can be unscrewed from #3 to remove #5 from #1 to replace #5 with another component shown in Figs. 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, and 16B to customize a spray from #1),
wherein the shower face is mountable to the shower head base with either side facing away from the shower head base and the spray of the shower head is dependent upon which side of the shower face is facing away from the shower head base (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 16B. If #1 is assembled with a second side of the shower face shown in Fig. 15B directed away from #3, a spray coverage of fluid coming out of #H will be increased due to #H widening).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito.
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 2 above, Naito does not specifically disclose wherein the pressure boosting spray is configured to increase water pressure across the shower face by 10% to 50% compared to a pressure of the spray (See Fig. 5 showing outlet pressure compared to pressure inside #1 and Col. 5 Lines 1-20 disclosing an increase in pressure, however a specific pressure increase percentage due to using #16B is not disclosed).
However, Naito does disclose wherein water pressure increases as a function of a size of the plurality of channels (See Col. 9 Lines 9-13).
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 the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 2 above such that the pressure boosting spray is configured to increase water pressure across the shower face by 10% to 50% compared to a pressure of the spray by setting the plurality of channels #H of #16B at a desired size, since doing so would yield the predictable result of spurting fluid from the shower head with a desired intensity (See Naito Col. 9 Lines 9-13).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of US PGPUB 2021/0138487 A1 to Bobusch et al. (“Bobusch”).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 8 above, Naito does not specifically disclose wherein the pressure boosting spray is configured to increase water pressure across the shower face by 10% to 50% compared to an incoming water line pressure (See Fig. 5 showing outlet pressure compared to pressure inside #1 and Col. 5 Lines 1-20 disclosing an increase in pressure, however a specific pressure increase percentage due to using #16B is not disclosed).
However, Naito does disclose wherein water pressure increases as a function of a size of the plurality of channels (See Col. 9 Lines 9-13).
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 the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 8 above such the pressure boosting spray is configured to increase water pressure across the shower face by 10% to 50% compared to an incoming water line pressure by setting the plurality of channels #H of #16B at a desired size, since doing so would yield the predictable result of spurting fluid from the shower head with a desired intensity (See Naito Col. 9 Lines 9-13).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied above, Naito does not specifically disclose wherein the coverage boosting mode is configured to increase spread of water across the shower face by 10% to 50% compared to an incoming spread at the first openings (See Annotated Fig. 15B of Naito. The channels #H are constructed to increase spread of water across #72 when #H expands from the first opening to the second opening, however a specific spread is not disclosed).
However Bobusch discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0001-0002) a fluid sprayer (See #1 in Fig. 17) comprising a face (See a portion over l108) that is configured to diverge fluid flow from a first opening (#107) towards a second opening (See an upper end of #1) for achieving a coverage boosting mode (See Fig. 17 and Paragraph 0143), wherein the coverage boosting mode is configured to increase spread of fluid across the face by a varied percentage depending on size of the second opening (See Fig. 17 and Paragraph 0143, an outlet angle of fluid spray, and thus an increase in spread of fluid, can be adjusted to a desired amount based on an angle between #53a and #53b).
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 the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 8 above such that the coverage boosting mode is configured to increase spread of water across the shower surface by 10% to 50% compared to an incoming spread at the first openings by adjusting a width of the second openings as taught by Bobusch, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing fluid covering a desired width on a target to be cleaned (See Bobusch Paragraph 0143).
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of US PGPUB 2021/0086205 A1 to Downey (“Downey”).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1, Naito does not specifically disclose wherein a plurality of nozzles extend through the plurality of channels, outward from a first side of the shower face, and outward from a second side opposite the first side of the shower face (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Figs. 15A-16C, none of the shower faces shown have nozzles extending through channels #H).
However, Downey discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0002), a shower head (See #10 in Figs. 1-6) comprising a plurality of nozzles (#22, which are on #14) that extend through a plurality of channels (#28, which are on #12), outward from a first side (See a top side of #12 in Fig. 6) of a shower face (#12), and outward from a second side opposite the first side of the shower face (See a bottom side of #12 at #34 in Fig. 6).
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 the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above such that a plurality of nozzles extend through the plurality of channels, outward from a first side of the shower face, and outward from a second side opposite the first side of the shower face, but utilizing #14 of Downey sized for the shower head #1 of Naito adjacent to the shower face #5 of Naito, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing water to be dispensed from the shower head as a stream (See Downey Paragraph 0019).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the shower head of Naito in view of Downey as applied to Claim 12 above, Naito as modified by Downey further discloses wherein the shower face comprises a shower plate (See #5 of Naito in Fig. 2 and See #12 of Downey in Fig. 6) and the shower head further comprises one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces removably mounted to the shower plate (See #14 of Downey in Fig. 6. When #14 of Downey is used and sized for the shower head of Naito, the intermediate piece will be removable when #6 of Naito is unscrewed from #1 of Naito such that the intermediate piece can be exchanged.), wherein the shower plate comprises the plurality of channels (See Fig. 2 of Naito and See Fig. 6 of Downey) and the one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces comprise the plurality of nozzles (See Figs. 1 and 6 of Downey), wherein the plurality of nozzles of each exchangeable intermediate piece of the one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces comprise a pattern for changing spray characteristics across the shower face (See Figs. 1 and 6 of Downey and See Paragraph 0019 of Downey).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the shower head of Naito in view of Downey as applied to Claim 13 above, Naito as modified by Downey further discloses wherein the one or more exchangeable intermediate pieces are made of one or more of polyoxymethylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and nylon (See Paragraph 0021 of Downey disclosing that #22 is made of ABS, which is equivalent to acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Thus at least a portion at #22 of the exchangeable intermediate piece #14 is made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and the shower plate is made of one or more of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, thermoplastic elastomer/thermoplastic rubber, silicone, and stainless steel (See Col. 3 Lines 33-50 of Naito disclosing that #5 is made of silicone, elastomer, or rubber).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of US Patent 5,964,415 to Hadar (“Hadar”).
Regarding Claim 16, in reference to the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above, Naito does not specifically disclose wherein the user-activated mechanism is a push button (See Fig. 2 showing #6 with threads, thus #6 is equivalent to a rotary dial that can be rotated when screwed to #3 or unscrewed from #3).
However, Hadar discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 5-20), a shower head (See the dispenser shown in Figs. 1-5, which has a shower feature #24 as shown in Fig. 3) comprising a user-activated mechanism (#30) configured to remove a shower face (#8) from a shower head base (#2) to allow customization of a spray from the shower head (See Fig. 5 and Col. 4 Lines 13-30, when #30 is pressed to remove #8 from #2, spray from the dispenser is capable of being customized by changing components in the dispenser), wherein the user-activated mechanism is a push button (See Col. 4 Lines 25-30).
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 the shower head of Naito as applied to Claim 1 above such that the user-activated mechanism is a push button taught by Hadar instead having the user-activated mechanism being the rotatable dial of Naito, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the shower face to be removed from the shower face with a single manual depression (See Hadar Col. 4 Lines 25-30) instead of by rotation.
PNG
media_image1.png
846
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
478
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
591
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 17, and 20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito, applicant argues that Naito does not anticipate a dual-sided shower face wherein spray characteristics depend on orientation. Applicant argues that in Naito, due to the elastic configuration with outlet holes being channels H, when water pressure inside the showerhead is low, the shower nozzle will contract and thus keep the diameter of the outlet holes small, thus outlet pressure of water at the shower nozzle increases and the water comes out forcefully. Applicant argues that in the event of water pressure inside the showerhead being high, the shower nozzle will expand and thus increase the diameter of the outlet holes, thus the volume of water coming out from the nozzle increases and outlet pressure is controlled, so that the force of the water can be appropriately maintained. Applicant further argues that the shower nozzle of Naito is fixed on the head of the grip with a round stopper, and when the shower nozzle is damaged or choked with dirt or the like, the round stopper is removed so that the shower nozzle can be easily replaced, but that Naito lacks any teaching of flipping the face to change spray characteristics. Applicant states that nowhere does Naito suggest that the configuration is such that a user would be able to remove the nozzle, flip it, and remount it to intentionally change spray characteristics between, for example, a pressure boosting mode and a coverage boosting mode, and that Naito provides no data or suggestion that water pressure or spray coverage would differ based on orientation of the nozzle shown in Figure 15B, which is provided with dimples on its surface.
This argument is not found persuasive. The law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellant is claiming but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Where functional limitations are recited for the structure set forth in the claim, the reference must also include structure which is capable of performing the recited function in order for the reference to be properly anticipatory. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 194 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1977). When the prior art fails to disclose a functional limitation, the examiner may be able to rely on the theory of inherency. See: MPEP §2112. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See: MPEP §2112 IV; Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). A recitation of function may not distinguish over the prior art since an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. The material or article worked upon also does not limit an apparatus claim but is rather an intended use of the apparatus. See: MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; See also: In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 15B of Naito, the flat shower face #5, with the embodiment shown in Fig. 15B is constructed such that it is capable of being mounted to #3 with either an upper side or a lower side of #72 facing away from #3 such that the spray of #1 depends on which direction #72 is mounted. The independent claims to not recite how the shower face is mounted to the shower base with either side facing away form the shower face, but merely require that the shoer face is “mountable” or “configured to be removably mounted” to the shower head base with either side facing away from the shower head base. Regardless of the material and construction of the embodiment shown in Fig. 15B, the flat shower face shown in Fig. 15B appears to be capable of being mounted in some manner against the shower face such that the shower face is “mountable” to the showerhead base with either side facing away from the shower head base and the spray of the shower head is dependent upon which side of the shower face is facing away from the shower head base under various spraying conditions, regardless of how the spray from one side compares to the spray from the other side. Therefore, while Naito does not have any specific disclosure related to meeting the functional limitations of the independent claims, the structure of Naito is capable of meeting the functional limitations of the independent claims, and thus reads on the functional limitations of the independent claims.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 17, and 20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), applicant additionally argues that Naito does not disclose a user-activated mechanism configured to remove the shower face from the shower head base to allow customization of the spray from the shower head. Applicant argues that Naito's removable ring stopper #6 is disclosed as a means to replace a damaged or clogged nozzle for maintenance, but not "to allow customization of the spray from the shower head" as claimed.
This argument is not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term “user-activated mechanism” in Claims 1, 17, and 20 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the Specification to correspond to structure of a push button, a lever, a rotary dial, or a combination thereof. Naito discloses a user-activated mechanism #6, which is shown in Fig. 2 with threads, thus #6 is equivalent to a rotary dial that can be rotated when screwed to #3 or unscrewed from #3. The user activated mechanism #6 can be operated by a user and is configured to remove the shower face from the shower head base such that it is capable of allowing customization of the spray from the shower head, since Col. 3 Lines 30-32 discloses that #6 can be removed to replace #5, thus #6 can be unscrewed from #3 to remove #5 from #1 to replace #5 with another component shown in Figs. 15A, 15C, 16A, 16B, and 16C to customize a spray from #1. Even if a clogged shower face is unclogged, or a broken shower face is replaced with an unbroken shower face, such operations is still equivalent to customizing spray from the shower head. Therefore, the user activated mechanism #6 reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed user activated mechanism, and Claims 1, 17, and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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 Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights