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 with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on December 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the respective claims of Groups, I, II, and II overlap in scope, and therefore do present an unreasonable search burden. More particularly, the claims of Groups I, II, and III are linked together by reciting certain common technical features.
This argument is not persuasive. Although the claims of Groups I, II, and III may share some common elements or general functional characteristics, such overlap does not negate the restriction where the claims are directed to patentably district species. In the present case, each group recites distinct structural and/or functional features that define different embodiments as stated in the Restriction Requirement, which would require separate and independent searches to determine patentability.
Moreover, the claimed species of Groups I, II, and III are not merely obvious variants of one another, but instead represent divergent subject matter that has acquired separate recognition in the art. As such, the differences between the groups are not trivial, but rather are central to the inventive concepts claimed. Consequently, the presence of some common technical features does not overcome the fact that examination of the respective groups would impose an unreasonable search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “operable coupled” in line 3. It is suggested to amend to -operably coupled-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first longitudinal axis of the sprayface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 defines “a longitudinal sprayhead axis”, not a “first longitudinal axis.” It is suggested to replace with “the longitudinal sprayhead axis,” or “the longitudinal sprayface axis.”
The claim recites that “the cleaning steam nozzle in the first cleaning mode of operation discharges a substantially laminar stream of water.” The term ”substantially laminar” is a term of degree that lacks of clear, objective standard for measuring the scope of the claim. While “laminar” generally refers to a non-turbulent flow regime, the claim does not specify what degree of laminarity qualifies as “substantially laminar” in light of the specification, not does it provide any quantitative or qualitative criteria (e.g., flow characteristic, Reynolds number range, spray coherence, or degree of atomization) by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a given stream falls within the scope of the claim.
As a result, it is unclear where the boundary lies between a “substantially laminar stream of water” and a non-laminar or partially turbulent stream, rendering the scope of the claim uncertain. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular stream of water discharged from a cleaning nozzle would meet the claimed limitation. Under the principle of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation as a jet stream in this Office Action.
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 1-3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhadanov (US 2022/0184643 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Zhadanov discloses a hand shower (100) comprising :
a handle (104);
a water passageway (206) received within the handle (Fig. 2B) and defining a water inlet (Fig. 2B);
a sprayhead (102) operably coupled to the handle (104) and including a sprayface (106) defining a longitudinal sprayhead axis (represented by arrow A in Fig. 1B), the sprayface (106) having a plurality of water outlets (108);
a cleaning nozzle assembly (600) supported by the sprayhead (102, Fig. 1C), the cleaning nozzle assembly including a cleaning stream nozzle (120) and a cleaning spray nozzle (118a/118b);
a valve assembly (208) fluidly coupled to the water passageway (206, Fig 4B);
a user interface (116) operably coupled to the valve assembly (208) to toggle the valve assembly between a plurality of modes of operation including a normal mode of operation, a first cleaning mode of operation and a second cleaning mode of operation (“The flow selector 116 is configured to allow the user to move the flow director 208 such that water is directed through one of the plurality nozzles 108, the pair of first nozzles 118a, 118b, or the second nozzle 120” see Par. [0029]);
wherein in the normal mode of operation, the water inlet is in fluid communication with at least some of the plurality of water outlets of the sprayface (the plurality nozzles 108);
wherein in the first cleaning mode of operation, the water inlet is in fluid communication with the cleaning stream nozzle (the second nozzle 120); and
wherein in the second cleaning mode of operation, the water inlet is in fluid communication with the cleaning spray nozzle (the pair of first nozzles 118a, 118b).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Zhadanov discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhadanov further discloses that the cleaning nozzle assembly defines a longitudinal nozzle axis (represented by “arrow B” in Fig. 1B) oriented at an angle of between 45 degrees and 135 degrees from the first longitudinal axis of the sprayface (arrow A is in perpendicular 90 degree relation to arrow B in Fig. 1B).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Zhadanov discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhadanov further discloses that a selector (110) operably coupled to the sprayface (106) and configured to change the water outlets in fluid communication with the water inlet when the valve assembly is in the normal mode of operation (“a lever 110 which is configured to allow a user to rotate the faceplate 106, thus selecting one of the groups of nozzles 108a-c” Par. [0026]).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Zhadanov discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhadanov further discloses that the valve assembly (208) includes: a valve housing (Figs. 2C); a first piston (pin 254 acts as a piston to engage a corresponding one or more of a plurality of indentations 256) received within the valve housing to divert water to the cleaning spray nozzle (Fig. 3A-3B); and a second piston (the other pin 254 acts as a piston to engage a corresponding one or more of a plurality of indentations 256) received within the valve housing to divert water to the cleaning stream nozzle (Fig. 4A-4B).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Zhadanov discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhadanov further discloses that the cleaning steam nozzle (120) in the first cleaning mode of operation discharges a substantially laminar stream of water (jet stream 402), and the cleaning spray nozzle (118a/b) in the second cleaning mode of operation discharges a fan spray of water (“fan-shaped spray pattern is formed” Par. [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhadanov in view of Miller et al. (US 2010/0237160 A1).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Zhadanov discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Zhadanov does not discloses that the first piston is movable within the valve housing between a first position and a second position, the first piston is in fluid communication with the second piston when in the first position, and the first piston is in fluid communication with the cleaning spray nozzle when in the second position; and the second piston is movable within the valve housing between a first position and a second position, the second piston is in fluid communication with the sprayface when in the first position, and the second piston is in fluid communication with the cleaning stream nozzle when in the second position.
Miller teaches a hand showerhead comprising a valve assembly (24) including a valve housing (28, Fig. 2C); a first piston (one of the stem of valves 24a-c, Fig. 3) received within the valve housing to divert water to a spray nozzle (Fig. 3-8); and a second piston (one of the stem of valves 24a-c, Fig. 3) received within the valve housing to divert water to another nozzle (Fig. 4A-4B), wherein the first piston is movable within the valve housing between a first position and a second position (closed and opening positions, see Par. [0042] and Fig. 3), the first piston (24a) is in fluid communication with the second piston (24b) when in the first position (Fig. 1 shows piston of 24a is in fluid communication with piston of 24b via upstream passageways), and the first piston (24a) is in fluid communication with the spray nozzle when in the second position (when piston valve 24a is open); and the second piston (24b) is movable within the valve housing (28) between a first position and a second position (Par. [0037] and Fig. 1J), the second piston (24b) is in fluid communication with the sprayface when in the first position (flow between sub-group C and inlet, Fig. 1J), and the second piston (24b) is in fluid communication with another spray nozzle when in the second position (flow between sub-group D and inlet, Fig. 1J).
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 valve assembly of Zhadanov, by replacing the sliding valve assembly with the rocker valve assembly as taught by Miller to controlling flow, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known element (rocker valves) for another (sliding valves) to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Zhadanov as modified by Miller discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Miller further discloses that a first spring (66) biasing the first piston (24a) toward the first position (Par. [0046]), and a second spring (66) biasing the second piston (24b) toward the first position (Par. [0046]).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Zhadanov as modified by Miller discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Miller further discloses that the user interface includes a first momentary input button (press surface of valve 24a) operably coupled to the first piston (stem of 24a), and a second momentary input button (press surface of valve 24b) operable coupled to the second piston (stem of 24b).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Zhadanov as modified by Miller discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Miller further discloses that the user interface includes a rocker switch pivotably supported by the valve housing, the rocker switch defining the first momentary input button and the second momentary input button (“rocker valves, Par. [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the cited references fails to teach elements: “the cleaning stream nozzle includes a side wall having an inwardly tapering internal surface defining a stream passageway extending between an inlet opening and an outlet opening; the cleaning spray nozzle includes a side wall and an end wall defining a chamber receiving the outlet opening of the cleaning stream nozzle, the end wall including an outlet opening; and the outlet opening of the cleaning stream nozzle is co-axially aligned with the outlet opening of the cleaning spray nozzle.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752