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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-7, is/are filed on 10/06/2025 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(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, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharratt (US 10159991 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1059
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sharratt teaches a shower filter adapter system comprising a housing (210), wherein the housing comprises an inner volume (110), wherein the housing is configured to receive a filter (intended use - 500) in the inner volume, the housing comprising: comprises a first distal end (212) comprising threading (threading of 230) configured to removably threadlingly attach to a shower component (intended use) of two or more of a shower inlet structure, a shower manifold structure, a shower head support structure, or a shower head (intended use); and a second distal end (i.e. 200) configured to connect to a flexible hose assembly (intended use - 300), the housinq comprises a first substantially cylindrical inner surface (inner surface of 212) confiqured to receive a distal end of the filter; and a second substantially cylindrical inner surface (520) confiqured to receive a filter body (550), the second inner surface having a greater width than the first inner surface (fig. 2), and the filter distal end comprises an O-ring gasket (564) configured to form a seal between the filter and the housing first inner surface (fig. 2). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 2, Sharratt teaches wherein, responsive to the shower component being threadingly attached to the housing first distal end, a portion of the shower component is configured to push the filter to compress the O-ring gasket to seal it against the housing the housing further comprises: one or more first inner surfaces configured to receive a distal end of the filter; and one or more second inner surfaces configured to receive a body of the filter (intended use – the shower component is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 4, Sharratt teaches wherein the filter distal end and the housing first inner surface comprise corresponding grooves (see the grooves that hold the o-rings 564) configured to receive the ring gasket the body of the filter is substantially cylindrical and the one or more second inner surfaces is a substantially cylindrical inner surface.
Regarding claim 5, Sharratt teaches wherein the first distal end of the housing is configured to removably attach to the shower component (intended use) via a threaded ring (230) to the two or more of the shower inlet structure, the shower manifold structure, the shower head support structure, or the shower head.
Regarding claim 6, Sharratt teaches wherein the filter distal end of the filter is configured to be proximate one or more check valves disposed in the shower component head (intended use – the check valve is not positively recited as the shower component is not positively required).
Regarding claim 7, Sharratt teaches wherein a first hose end of the flexible hose assembly is configured to connect to the second distal end of the housing and a second hose end of the flexible hose assembly is configured to connect to the shower head (intended use - a flexible hose assembly is not part of the shower filter adapter).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt (US 10159991 B2) in view of Luby (US 5215658 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sharratt teaches wherein the housing has a greater inner width at the one or more second inner surfaces than at the one or more first inner surfaces (see figs.2 and 6). Sharratt does not teach comprising a compression spring configured to be compressed under the filter and to aid in removing the filter. However, this is well-known. Luby teaches using an ejector spring 80 affixed to the bottom of a housing to exert a sufficient force to displace the filter cartridge (16) from its assembled position within in chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have to incorporated said teachings to facilitate easy and non-destructive removal of the filter cartridge, preventing disintegration during maintenance.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777