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 C in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0110504; "Honeyands") in view of Clifford et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0000553; "Clifford").
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Honeyands teaches a showerhead having an air chamber (16), air outlet {18), water chamber (20), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32), wherein pressurized air breaks the water into droplets and the air and droplets exit as a shower (34) (¶¶ [0005]-[0006], [0010]). Honeyands further teaches controlling shower pattern and droplet size (¶ [0009]).
Honeyands does not expressly teach the claimed pressure regulator configured to regulate a range of inlet pressures to a lower and narrower range of internal pressures.
Clifford teaches a pressure regulating valve (20) having body (22), inlet (24), outlet (26), load spring (30), adjustment mechanism (32), balanced valve cartridge (40), diaphragm (50), and pressure chamber (52) for regulating downstream fluid pressure (¶¶ [0013]-[0014]). Clifford
expressly teaches using pressure regulators in plumbing fixtures, including showers and faucets, to maintain a predetermined downstream pressure despite changes in demand (¶ [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the Honeyands showerhead with the pressure regulating valve (20) of Clifford to maintain the predetermined downstream pressure despite changes in the water supply, as expressly taught by Clifford (¶ [0002]). Because Honeyands' air outlet (18), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32) remain fixed, maintaining regulated water pressure would predictably maintain substantially corresponding spray and water-to-air characteristics.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Petrovic (U.S. Pub. 2009/0236438) and Hofherr (U.S. Patent 6,561,440).
Regarding claim 4, Honeyands teaches nozzle sections (30a-c) configured so that individual droplet showers (34a-c) converge toward central axis (36) and amalgamate into a single shower (34), thereby producing a more uniform droplet distribution (¶ [0054]).
Petrovic teaches a shower spray device including jet cavity (104) and outlet orifice (100) and teaches selectable spray patterns including full-cone droplet distributions (¶ [0019]). Petrovic further teaches that the resulting distribution depends upon how fluid is introduced into the jet cavity and upon the cavity geometry (¶ [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the nozzles of Honeyands to provide Petrovic's full-cone spray because Honeyands expressly seeks a more uniform droplet distribution (¶ [0009]) and Petrovic teaches selecting cavity geometry and inlet flow to obtain a desired full-cone droplet distribution (¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Hofherr teaches full-cone nozzle (12), discharge orifice (22), vane (30), mixing chamber (31), and conical spray pattern (44). Hofherr further teaches that the prior-art full-cone nozzle depicted in Fig. 9 produces substantially less spray coverage at 10 psi than at 60 psi, establishing that spray coverage, and thus cone angle at a fixed target distance, varies with operating pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the full-cone nozzles over the regulated pressure range provided by Clifford (see rejection of claim 1, above) because Hofherr expressly teaches the pressure-dependent coverage of conventional full-cone nozzles.
Claims 10, 14 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Petrovic.
Regarding claim 10, Petrovic teaches that shower performance depends upon droplet size and the velocity with which the droplets strike the user (¶ [0016]), and that droplet size varies with spray-head geometry and operating pressure (¶ [0017]). Petrovic further teaches that, as liquid-jet velocity increases, the liquid passes through different breakup regimes producing correspondingly different droplet sizes (¶ [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the regulated operating pressures of Honeyands/Clifford to obtain desired droplet sizes and velocities because Petrovic expressly identifies operating pressure, droplet size, and droplet velocity as shower-performance parameters (¶¶ [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Petrovic teaches that droplet size varies with operating pressure (¶ [0017]) and expressly teaches controlling droplet size, frequency, and velocity to prevent repeated droplet impact from producing a stinging or numbing sensation on the user (¶ [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the regulated pressure and resulting droplet size and velocity of Honeyands/Clifford to obtain the desired dermal impact because Petrovic expressly teaches controlling these parameters to avoid a stinging sensation (¶ [0018]). The corresponding kinetic energy results from the selected droplet mass and velocity.
Regarding claim 21, Honeyands teaches the air/water droplet-producing structure including air outlet (18), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32) (Honeyands: ¶¶ [0005]-[0006]. [0010]), while Clifford teaches pressure regulating valve (20) configured to maintain a predetermined downstream pressure despite variations in supply conditions (Clifford: ¶¶ [0002], [0013]-[0014]).
Honeyands and Clifford do not expressly teach that droplets discharged at first and second inlet pressure conditions exhibit kinetic energies in respective first and second ranges that approximate one another, as required by claim 21.
Petrovic teaches that shower performance depends upon droplet size and the velocity with which the droplets strike the user (¶¶ [0016]), that droplet size varies with operating pressure (¶ [00l7]), and that droplet size, frequency, and velocity are controlled to obtain desired user-perceived spray performance (¶ [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to regulate Honeyands' water supply with Clifford's pressure regulator so that substantially corresponding droplet size and velocity are maintained despite different inlet pressures, because Clifford expressly teaches maintaining a predetermined downstream pressure despite supply variation, and Petrovic expressly teaches controlling droplet size and velocity to obtain desired shower performance. Droplets having substantially corresponding mass and velocity would have substantially corresponding kinetic energies.
Claims 16, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Bock (U.S. Patent 4,537,360).
Regarding claim 16 Honeyands teaches the water-droplet discharge structure including water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32) (Honeyands: ¶¶ [0005]-[0006], [0010]), while Clifford teaches pressure regulating valve (20) having inlet (24), outlet (26), balanced valve cartridge ( 40), diaphragm (50), and pressure chamber (52) for regulating water to a predetermined downstream pressure (Clifford: ¶¶ [0002], [0013]-(0014]).
Honey ands and Clifford do not teach a set of flow restrictors interposed between the pressure regulator and the set of nozzles which cooperate with the regulator to further reduce the internal pressure and establish different flow rates at different inlet pressures, as required by claim 16.
Bock teaches a flow restrictor (3) having a plurality of restriction stages, including first restriction orifice (5), second restriction orifice (8), and a third restriction formed by openings (9, 10) (col. 1, lines 55-68; col. 2, lines 46-65). Bock expressly teaches that the successive restriction orifices reduce pressure in stages to a downstream pressure producing a desired discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22) and that the restriction sizes may be selected to obtain desired flow rates (col. 2, lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Bock's plurality of restriction stages downstream of Clifford's pressure regulator (20) and upstream of Honeyands' nozzle section (30), because Bock expressly teaches using successive restrictions to further reduce upstream pressure to a selected downstream pressure and discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22).
The resulting regulator and downstream restrictors would therefore cooperate to reduce the pressure supplied to Honeyands' nozzles below the pressure established by the regulator alone. Because Bock teaches that discharge rate depends upon the pressure applied across the restriction and the selected restriction area (col. 2, lines 1-22), a lower inlet pressure applied to the same regulator/restrictor arrangement would predictably result in a lower downstream pressure and lower discharge flow rate, thereby providing the claimed second internal pressure and second flow rate less than the corresponding first internal pressure and first flow rate.
Regarding claim 23, Honeyands teaches the water/air droplet-producing shower structure, including air outlet (18), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30). and outlet (32) (Honeyands: ¶¶ [0005]-[0006], [0010]), while Clifford teaches pressure regulating valve (20) having inlet (24), outlet (26), balanced valve cartridge (40), diaphragm (50), and pressure chamber (52) for maintaining a predetermined downstream pressure (Clifford: ¶¶ [0002], [0013]-[0014]).
Honeyands and Clifford do not teach a separate flow restrictor interposed between the pressure regulator and the set of nozzles which further restricts the regulated internal pressure to a third range less than and narrower than the second range, as required by claim 23.
Bock teaches a downstream flow restrictor (3) having a first restriction orifice (5), a second restriction orifice (8), and a third restriction collectively formed by discharge openings (9, 10) (col. 1, lines 55-68; col. 2, ll. 46-65). Bock expressly teaches that the flow through an orifice is dependent upon the orifice area and upstream static pressure and that the series of orifices (5, 8, 9-10) reduces the pressure in successive stages to a pressure which produces the desired discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22). Bock further teaches selecting the sizes of the restriction orifices to obtain other desired flow rates (col. 2, lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Back's flow restrictor (3) downstream of Clifford's pressure regulating valve (20) and upstream of Honeyands' nozzle section (30) to further reduce the regulated pressure supplied to the nozzles, because Bock expressly teaches using serial restrictions to reduce an upstream pressure in successive stages to obtain a desired downstream discharge condition (Bock, col. 2, lines 15-22).
The resulting pressure regulator and downstream flow restrictor would therefore cooperate to regulate the water to additional lower internal operating pressures. Honeyands' fixed air outlet (18), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32) would continue to discharge the air/water droplet shower at those additional regulated pressures. Honeyands expressly teaches that the nozzle arrangement is configured to provide controlled shower pattern and droplet characteristics (¶¶ [0009]-[0012]). Thus, operating the same fixed nozzle/mixing arrangement at third and fourth regulated pressure conditions would predictably produce corresponding third and fourth spray patterns, with the fourth pattern and water-to-air ratio approximating the third when the regulated operating pressures approximate one another.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Bock.
Regarding claim 30, Honeyands and Clifford do not teach a separate flow restrictor interposed between the pressure regulator and nozzles which further reduces the regulated pressure to a third internal pressure less than the first internal pressure, as required by the claim.
Bock teaches flow restrictor (3) having serial restriction orifices (5, 8, 9, 10). Bock expressly teaches that these restrictions reduce pressure in successive stages to a pressure producing a desired discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22), and that the restriction areas may be selected to obtain desired flow rates (col. 2, lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Bock's flow restrictor downstream of Clifford's pressure regulator and upstream of Honeyands' nozzle section (30) because Bock expressly teaches successive restriction to obtain a further selected downstream pressure and discharge condition.
Honeyands' air outlet (18), water outlet (22), mixing chamber (24), nozzle section (30), and outlet (32) provide a fixed air/water droplet-generating arrangement (¶¶ [0005]-[0006], [0010]).
Honeyands further teaches that shower pattern and droplet characteristics are controlled by the nozzle/mixing arrangement (¶¶ [0009]-[0012]). Accordingly, operating the same arrangement at the further regulated pressure would produce a further spray condition. To the extent claim 30 requires the third volumetric water-to-air ratio to approximate the first volumetric ratio, such correspondence would result from maintaining substantially the same fixed air/water mixing geometry while selecting the downstream operating pressure to reproduce the desired shower condition.
Claims 22 and 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Zhou et al. (WO 2012/059817 A2; "Zhou").
Regarding claim 22, Clifford teaches pressure regulating valve (20) between inlet (24) and outlet (26) for maintaining a controlled downstream pressure.
Honeyands and Clifford do not expressly teach that the pressure regulator itself comprises a flow restrictor configured to regulate the first range of inlet pressures to a third range of internal pressures less than and narrower than the first range, as required by claim 22.
Zhou teaches pressure compensator body (1) having flow orifices (10) and flexible flow-control flaps (2). As inlet pressure increases, flaps (2) flex toward one another and reduce the effective flow area through orifices (10) (Zhou: ¶¶ [0043], [0046]-[0047]). Zhou expressly teaches that this reduces flow at increased pressure to maintain the overall flow rate and that the pressure compensator may be incorporated into a showerhead or faucet aerator (¶¶ [0042], [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Zhou's pressure-responsive flow restrictor as the regulating structure of Clifford's pressure regulator because Zhou expressly teaches such structure for compensating for varying inlet pressures in showerheads and faucets. The resulting regulator would restrict varying inlet pressures to a controlled downstream operating condition.
Recitations of “such as to fill a pot with water” and “such as to rinse a dish and reduce water consumption” are not germane to rejections based upon anticipation under 35 USC 102 because it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 29, Honeyands and Clifford do not expressly teach that the pressure regulator comprises a flow restrictor configured to regulate a first range of inlet pressures to a second range of internal pressures less than and narrower than the first range, as required by claim 29.
Zhou teaches pressure compensator body (1), flow orifices (10), and flexible pressure-responsive flaps (2). Increasing water pressure causes flaps (2) to reduce the effective flow area through orifices (10) (¶¶ [0043], [0046]-[0047]), thereby reducing flow at elevated pressure and maintaining the overall flow rate (¶ [0047]). Zhou further expressly teaches incorporating the pressure compensator into a showerhead or faucet aerator (¶¶ [0042], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Zhou's pressure-responsive flow-restricting structure in Clifford's regulator because Zhou expressly teaches that structure for compensating for varying water pressures in showerheads and faucets. The modified regulator would therefore comprise the claimed flow-restricting structure for converting varying inlet conditions to a controlled downstream operating condition.
Claim 24 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Bock and Petrovich.
Regarding claim 24, Honeyands further teaches adjusting shower pattern and droplet size (¶ [0009]) and arranging nozzle sections (30a-c) so showers (34a-c) converge into a selected common shower geometry (¶ [0054]).
Honeyands and Clifford do not teach a separate flow restrictor interposed between the pressure regulator and nozzles which cooperates with the regulator and nozzles to produce droplets within target size and speed ranges and a droplet cloud having a particular target geometry, as required by claim 24.
Bock teaches flow restrictor (3) having successive restriction orifices (5, 8, 9, 10), which reduce pressure in stages to a pressure producing a desired discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22). Bock further teaches selecting the restriction areas to obtain desired flow rates (col. 2, lines 1-14). Petrovic teaches controlling droplet size and velocity to obtain desired shower performance (¶¶ [0016]-[0018]) and controlling flow properties to obtain selected spray patterns (¶¶ [0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to provide Back's downstream restriction between Clifford's regulator and Honeyands' nozzle arrangement to obtain a selected downstream pressure and discharge rate, because Bock expressly teaches staged restriction for that purpose. It would further have been obvious to select that pressure/flow condition to obtain the desired droplet size and velocity taught by Petrovic and the desired shower geometry taught by Honeyands.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands and Clifford, further in view of Bock, Petrovic, and Hofherr (U.S. Patent 6,561,440).
Regarding claim 26, Honeyands and Clifford do not teach a separate downstream flow restrictor which cooperates with the pressure regulator and nozzles to increase average droplet size, reduce average droplet speed, and reduce spray angle, as required by claim 26.
Bock teaches restrictor (3) having serial restriction orifices (5, 8, 9, 10), which progressively reduce downstream pressure to obtain a desired discharge rate (col. 2, lines 15-22). Petrovic teaches that droplet size varies with operating pressure (¶ [0017]) and that changes in liquid velocity alter the breakup regime and resulting droplet size (¶ [0020]). Hofherr teaches a conventional full-cone nozzle whose spray coverage at 10 psi is substantially smaller than its coverage at 60 psi, thereby teaching reduced full-cone coverage/angle at reduced pressure (Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Back's downstream restrictor to further reduce the pressure supplied to the nozzles because Bock expressly teaches staged pressure reduction to obtain a desired discharge condition. The reduced operating pressure would predictably reduce discharge velocity and alter droplet size as taught by Petrovic, and reduce full-cone spray coverage/angle as demonstrated by Hofherr.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyands in view of Clifford, further in view of Kempf et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0096025) and U.S. Pub. 2006/0219822 ("the '822 reference").
Regarding claim 27, Honeyands and Clifford do not teach that the body defines a kitchen faucet, or a valve operable between a first configuration bypassing the pressure regulator and a second configuration directing water through the pressure regulator, as required by claim 27.
Kempf teaches a faucet associated with a kitchen sink, expressly identifying the coldwater and hot-water connections as those of a kitchen faucet. and teaches a faucet body having an operating valve and an integral bypass valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ the pressure-regulated water-delivery arrangement of Honeyands/Clifford in Kempf's kitchen faucet because Clifford expressly teaches use of pressure regulators in faucets, while Kempf expressly provides the corresponding kitchen-faucet environment.
The '822 reference teaches high-flow limiter (16) low-flow limiter (18) regulator plate (30), valve (50), and opening (72). When valve (50) closes opening (72), the only flow path is through low-flow limiter (18). providing the lower-flow condition. When valve (50) opens opening (72) water bypasses low-flow limiter (18) providing the higher flow condition (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]; Figs. 8A-8B). The '822 reference expressly teaches this arrangement to provide selectively different flow rates over varying water pressures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kempf's kitchen faucet with the selectable bypass arrangement of the '822 reference because the '822 reference expressly teaches bypassing the lower-flow restriction to obtain a higher-flow condition. The resulting kitchen faucet would therefore be selectively operable between a higher-flow bypass condition and a lower-flow regulated condition.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,548,015. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See table, below.
Instant Claims
Claims of U.S. Pat. 11,548,015
Explanation
1
1
Issued claim 1 recites the pressure regulator interposed between the inlet and fluid circuit, regulation of a range of inlet pressures to a lower/narrower range of internal pressures, and first/second spray conditions having corresponding volumetric water-to-air ratios. The claim 1 falls within its scope. The instant claim deletes limitations present in the patented claim and is therefore broader; patent claim 1 falls within its scope.
4
4
Patent claim 4 expressly recites full-cone nozzles and droplets converging into a cloud at a spray angle proportional to internal pressure. The instant claim is not patentably distinct from the same subject matter already claimed.
5
5
Patent claim 5 recites conical sprays having conical angles proportional to internal pressure, plus additional restrictions including six nozzles and a maximum pattern width. The patented claim is therefore a narrower species within the instant claim.
10
1 and 10
Patent claim 10 expressly claims a first exit velocity/average droplet size and, at the lower regulated condition, a lower second exit velocity and larger second average size. Patent claim 1 additionally claims corresponding kinetic-energy ranges. The instant combination is an obvious variation of these already-claimed relationships.
14
13 and 14
Patent claim 13 claims corresponding kinetic-energy ranges, and claim 14 expressly claims a kinetic energy associated with the transition of human dermal sensation from gentle impact to stinging impact The additional limitation of instant claim 14 is substantially the same limitation already patented.
16
16
Patent claim 16 expressly claims flow restrictors interposed between the pressure regulator and nozzles, cooperation to produce a lower internal pressure, and first/second flow rates at different inlet pressures. The instant claim is substantially the same combination but depends from the presently broadened claim 1.
19
19
Patent claim 19 claims the regulator/nozzle system operated at first and second inlet pressures, including the lower second exit velocity, larger droplet size, corresponding spray patterns, and corresponding volumetric water-to-air ratios. The instant claim omits restrictions of the issued claim and is therefore broader.
20
20
Patent claim 20 expressly claims first/second corresponding kinetic-energy ranges, corresponding average hang times, and corresponding thermal energies. These are the distinguishing limitations of instant claim 20; the subject matter is already claimed in the parent patent.
21
1
Instant claim 21 adds first and second kinetic-energy ranges that approximate one another. Patent claim 1 expressly claims the same relationship under first and second regulated pressure conditions.
22
n/a
23
3 and 16
Patent claim 16 claims downstream now restrictors cooperating with the regulator to produce an additional lower internal pressure. Patent claim 3 claims operation at a third regulated inlet/internal pressure with another spray pattern and corresponding volumetric ratio. operating conditions of instant claim 23 is an obvious variation.Extending those already-claimed regulator/restrictor operating relationships to the additional
24
4, 5, 10 and 16
Patent claim 16 supplies the regulator/downstream-restrictor/nozzle architecture; claim 10 claims controlled droplet size and velocity; and claims 4-5 claim controlled spray geometry. Expressing those same parameters as target droplet sizes, target speeds, and a target cloud geometry does not define a patentably distinct combination.
25
n/a
26
4, 5, 10 and 16
Patent claim 16 claims the regulator/restrictor/nozzle combination; claim 10 claims lower velocity and increased average droplet size at the lower-pressure condition; claims 4-5 relate spray/cone angle to internal pressure. The instant claimed increase in droplet size, reduction in speed, and reduction in spray angle is an obvious combination of those already-claimed effects.
27
n/a
29
n/a
30
16 and 19
Patent claim 16 claims a downstream flow restrictor producing an additional lower internal pressure. Patent claim 19 claims the pressure-dependent spray-pattern and corresponding volumetric water-to-air relationships. Applying the already-claimed downstream restriction to the already-claimed claim-19 operating architecture to obtain another reduced-pressure spray condition is an obvious variation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 25 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 and if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double-patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach or adequately suggest the additionally claimed relationship wherein the different operating conditions provide the recited substantially corresponding kinetic-energy range, substantially corresponding average hand times and substantially corresponding thermal-energy characteristics.
Regarding claim 25, Honeyands teaches nozzle sections (30a-c) arranged so that showers (34a-c) converge into shower (34), thereby providing more uniform droplet size and density and less misting at the bounds of the shower (¶ [0054]). However, the prior art of record does not teach or adequately suggest the additionally claimed droplet curtain retaining the target temperature associated with a dermal sensation of warmth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights