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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant amended claim 1 to include new limitations that change the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and is moot. A new rejection is set forth below based on newly applied prior art.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowden, (U.S. 4,809,369).
Regarding claim 1, Bowden teaches an adjustable device comprising:
an adapter (the adapter assembly formed by swivel joint 18 and top tubular section 12, wherein swivel joint 18 connects to shower pipe 16 and supports top tubular section 12) (Figs. 1–2; col. 3, ll. 17–24);
a stem configured to connect to the adapter (a non-perforated tubular section having a threaded end connected to top tubular section 12 of the adapter assembly) (col. 3, ll. 30–42); and
a diffuser configured to selectively and removably connect directly to either the adapter in a first configuration of the adjustable device or the stem in a second, different configuration of the adjustable device (perforated tubular section 10 having holes 13 and threaded ends 10A, 10B, selectively connected directly to top tubular section 12 of the adapter assembly or to an intervening non-perforated tubular section) (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42).
Regarding claim 2, Bowden further teaches each of the adapter, the stem, and the diffuser comprises a common connection feature (complementary threaded ends of top tubular section 12 and the perforated and non-perforated tubular sections) (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42), such that the diffuser is configured to connect to the stem or the adapter, and the stem is configured to connect to the adapter (the threaded tubular sections being selectively connected end-to-end) (col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42).
Regarding claim 3, Bowden further teaches the diffuser comprises a connection feature (threaded end 10A or 10B of perforated tubular section 10) (Fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 10–16) configured to connect to a complementary connection feature of the adapter or a complementary connection feature of the stem (a mating threaded end of top tubular section 12 or a non-perforated tubular section) (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden, (U.S. 4,809,369).
Regarding claim 8, Bowden teaches the stem comprises a first portion configured to connect to at least one of the adapter or the diffuser (a non-perforated tubular section configured to connect between top tubular section 12 and a perforated tubular section 10) (col. 3, ll. 30–42), the first portion comprising a first end (a first threaded end) (col. 3, ll. 30–42), a second end opposite the first end (an opposite threaded end) (col. 3, ll. 30–42), and a first length defined by a distance from the first end to the second end (the longitudinal length of the non-perforated tubular section) (Fig. 1).
Bowden does not expressly teach a second portion of the stem having corresponding first and second ends and a second length less than the first length. However, Bowden teaches connecting modular tubular sections end-to-end and selecting the number of sections to obtain a desired overall length (col. 3, ll. 10–16). Duplication of a known part may support an obviousness rejection when the rationale applies to the particular facts. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate Bowden’s non-perforated tubular stem section, including its opposite threaded ends, to provide a second portion configured to connect to at least one of the adapter, the first portion of the stem, or the diffuser, because the duplicated section would predictably increase the adjustable length of Bowden’s modular device while preserving compatibility between adjoining sections.
It further would have been obvious to provide the duplicated stem portions with different longitudinal lengths, including a first length greater than a second length, to permit adjustment in different length increments and thereby more precisely obtain Bowden’s desired overall device length. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Bowden teaches the stem comprises a first portion (a non-perforated tubular section) (col. 3, ll. 30–42), comprising a first end including a first connection feature (a first threaded end) (col. 3, ll. 30–42), and a second, opposite end including a second connection feature (an opposite threaded end) (col. 3, ll. 30–42).
Bowden does not expressly teach an additional portion comprising corresponding first and second connection features. However, Bowden teaches a modular shower formed by connecting tubular sections end-to-end and selecting the number of sections to obtain the desired overall length (col. 3, ll. 10–16). Duplication of a known part may support an obviousness rejection when the rationale is shown to apply to the particular facts. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate Bowden’s non-perforated tubular stem section, including its opposite threaded ends, to provide the claimed additional stem portion, because adding another identical modular section would predictably increase the adjustable length of Bowden’s device while preserving compatibility between adjoining sections.
Regarding claim 10, the duplicated non-perforated tubular section would have the first connection feature of the first portion being the same as the first connection feature of the additional portion (the same first threaded end on each duplicated section) (col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42), and the second connection feature of the first portion being the same as the second connection feature of the additional portion (the same opposite threaded end on each duplicated section) (col. 3, ll. 10–16, 30–42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an identical duplicate of Bowden’s stem section because the duplicated section would predictably retain the same complementary threaded connections while increasing the adjustable length of the device, consistent with Bowden’s modular construction.
Regarding claim 11, Bowden teaches the diffuser comprises openings oriented longitudinally along the diffuser (a plurality of holes arranged along the length of perforated tubular section 10) (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 36–42), but does not expressly teach the openings are also oriented laterally around the diffuser.
Bowden teaches that a user may have difficulty rotating or manually directing water toward selected areas of the body, including the lower back (col. 2, ll. 43–59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to distribute Bowden’s holes laterally across the forward-facing portion of tubular section 10, in addition to longitudinally along the section, to increase the area receiving water without requiring the user to reposition or manually redirect the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden in view of Haney et al., (U.S. 2007/0235183).
Regarding claim 4, Bowden teaches the adjustable device of claim 3 but does not expressly teach the connection feature of the diffuser comprises a lip configured to engage a recess of the adapter and an additional recess of the stem.
Haney teaches successive modular tubular sections having a connection feature comprising a lip (radially projecting lip 112 at the leading edge of male end 106) (Haney Fig. 4; ¶ [0021]) configured to engage a recess (circumferential groove 144 in female end 108) (Haney Figs. 4–5; ¶¶ [0027], [0030]). Haney teaches that the male end of one tubular section is inserted into the female end of another section such that lip 112 expands into groove 144 and locks the sections together (Haney Fig. 5; ¶ [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace Bowden’s common threaded connections with Haney’s common lip-and-groove connections by providing the diffuser with lip 112 and providing the adapter and stem with respective grooves 144, thereby allowing the diffuser to selectively connect to either tubular component without glue or separate couplings (Haney ¶ [0006]).
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden in view of Lloyd, (U.S. 4,964,921).
Regarding claim 5, Bowden teaches the adjustable device of claim 1. However, Bowden does not teach the adapter comprises a first portion configured to removably connect to the stem or the adapter, and a second portion configured to removably connect to the first portion of the adapter.
Lloyd teaches a first portion configured to removably connect to the stem or the adapter (reducer 80 forming adapter 65 and connected to the flue pipe while receiving the brush pipe) (Fig. 4; col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 20). Lloyd further teaches a second portion configured to removably connect to the first portion of the adapter (reducer 90 frictionally received over reducer 80 by cylindrical portions 88 and 96) (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 8–20).
Lloyd additionally teaches that reducer 80 may be used with or without reducer 90 depending upon the size of the flue, thereby teaching that the second adapter portion is selectively removable (col. 5, ll. 21–31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bowden’s adapter to include Lloyd’s removable first and second adapter portions because doing so would allow the adapter to be selectively configured for different connection sizes while maintaining a removable connection between the adapter portions.
Regarding claim 6, Bowden teaches the adjustable device of claim 5 as set forth above. However, Bowden does not teach that the first portion of the adapter exhibits a frustoconical tubular shape including a large end and a small end, and the second portion of the adapter exhibits a frustoconical tubular shape including a large end and a small end.
Lloyd teaches the first portion of the adapter exhibits a frustoconical tubular shape including a large end and a small end (reducer 80 having a conical section extending between differently sized opposite ends 82 and 84) (Lloyd Fig. 4; col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 7), and the second portion of the adapter exhibits a frustoconical tubular shape including a large end and a small end (reducer 90 having conical section 92 extending between inlet 94 and cylindrical outlet section 96) (Lloyd Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 8–20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second portions of modified Bowden’s adapter with Lloyd’s frustoconical tubular reducer shapes because the tapered portions permit connection between tubular structures of different diameters while retaining the removable, selectively configurable adapter arrangement taught by Lloyd.
Regarding claim 7, Bowden teaches the adjustable device of claim 6 as set forth above. However, Bowden does not teach that the large end of the first portion of the adapter includes a first outer diameter, the large end of the second portion of the adapter includes a second outer diameter, and the second outer diameter is larger than the first outer diameter.
Lloyd teaches the large end of the first portion of the adapter includes a first outer diameter (the enlarged end of reducer 80 adjacent cylindrical section 88) (Lloyd Fig. 4; col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 7), the large end of the second portion of the adapter includes a second outer diameter (the enlarged end of reducer 90 adjacent inlet 94) (Lloyd Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 8–20), and the second outer diameter is larger than the first outer diameter (reducer 90 fits over reducer 80, with cylindrical portion 96 received over cylindrical portion 88) (Lloyd Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 8–20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the second adapter portion of modified Bowden with a larger outer diameter than the first adapter portion because Lloyd’s nested reducer arrangement requires the second portion to fit over the first portion while permitting selective adaptation to a larger connection size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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 A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights