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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on December 1, 2025. Claims 1, 9, and 20 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 already defines expansion and contraction of the limiter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (WO 2018/224890 A2) in view of Chen (US 2018/0216325 A1) and Pan (CN 107991926 A).
With regard to claim 1, Chang discloses a remote-controlled adjustable showerhead device (Fig. 5) comprising: a showerhead comprised of a body (60), a connection opening (61), a fastener (62), a water opening, and a pivot point (63); a motor (82); a limiter (86) configured to expand and contract; a receiver (42); a remote (40) comprised of a button and a transmitter; and a battery (100).
Chang does not disclose that the remote comprised of a first button, a second button, and a RFID transmitter, wherein the first button is configured to rotate the body of the showerhead around the pivot point and the second button is configured to control expansion and contraction of the limiter.
Chen teaches a remote controller (160) including a first button and a second button (“a keyboard, a wall-mounted keypad”, it is well known that keyboard/keypad comprised of multiple buttons), and a RFID transmitter (Par. [0043]) for controlling operations of a faucet unit.
Pan teaches a showerhead device configured to rotate a body of the showerhead around the pivot point (“the electric massage head component comprises electric motor, massage faceplate and convex massage member, the convex massage member fixed at the surface of the massage panel; the electric motor and the massage panel. the electric motor and the massage panel against, can drive the massage panel for 360 degrees rotating motion of massage panel is provided with a convex concave”, see Fig. 3).
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 device of Chang, by incorporating the keyboard/wall-mounted keypad and RFID transmitter as taught by Chen as the controller and the electric motor and the massage panel as taught by Pan for the showerhead, doing it would provide a rotatable massage showerhead to satisfy users with different requirements (Par. [0006] Pan) and also provide a more reliable digital communication for a particular user to operate the showerhead (Par. [0043] Chen).
With regard to claim 2, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the pivot point is comprised of a ball and socket joint (Fig. 5 between 60 and 63).
With regard to claim 3, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the motor is powered by the battery (Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 4, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the limiter (86) is powered by the battery (Fig. 5A and 7).
With regard to claim 5, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the motor (80) is attached to the pivot point (63).
With regard to claim 6, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the showerhead can rotate 360 degrees around the pivot point (Fig. 5 between 60 and 63).
With regard to claim 7, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chang further discloses that the limiter (68) can expand and contract via the motor (Par. [0042]).
Claims 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Chen and Pan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mavinahally et al. (US 2020/0109541 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Chang as modified by Chen and Pan discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They do not disclose that the battery is positioned within the body.
Mavinahally teaches a showerhead comprising a battery (514) is positioned within the body (Fig. 3).
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 device of Chang, by forming the battery within the body of the showerhead device as taught by Mavinahally, doing it would improve the appearance of the shower device by eliminating additional wiring connection between the motor and the power source (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 9, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above Mavinahally further discloses that the battery (514) comprised of a housing (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 10, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Chen further discloses that the remote (160) is comprised of a fastener (“wall-mounted” Par. [0043]).
With regard to claim 12, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Mavinahally further discloses that the housing (514) is comprised of a waterproof housing (housing 514 protects battery from water).
With regard to claim 14, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Chang further discloses that the battery (100) is in electrical communication with the motor (82) via a wire (42).
With regard to claim 16, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Chen further discloses that the transmitter is in wireless electrical communication with the receiver (Par. [0043]).
With regard to claim 17, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Chang further discloses the limiter (86) can expand and contract via the motor (82).
With regard to claim 18, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Mavinahally further discloses that the housing (514) is positioned outside the battery.
With regard to claim 20, since the device of Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Chang as modified by Chen and Pan will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Berkman et al. (US 2016/0353187 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above. They do not disclose that the fastener is comprised of a suction cup.
Berkman teaches a showerhead assembly comprising a remote comprised of a fastener, wherein the fastener is comprised of a suction cup (Par. [0048]).
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 device of Chang, by incorporating the suction cup as the fastener as taught by Berkman, doing it would allow the remote temporarily affixed to a smooth surface (Par. [0048]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 110355009 A).
With regard to claim 19, Chang as modified by Chen, Pan, and Mavinahally discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. They do not disclose that the remote is comprised of a waterproof remote.
Tang teaches a showerhead device comprising a control key surface, wherein the control key surface comprised of a waterproof case.
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 device of Chang, by incorporating the waterproof case taught by Tang on the remote of Chang, doing it would protect the remote from short circuit.
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 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 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