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 .
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 14, 19, 20-21, 24, 31-37of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application recites a faucet system comprising : a valve assembly configured for positioning below a support and configured to connect to two or more fluid lines; a handle configured for positioning above the support, the handle being mechanically coupled to the valve assembly and moveable between an on configuration and an off configuration such that moving the handle mechanically operates the valve assembly; and a fluid conduit into which fluid from at least one of the two or more fluid lines is directed via the valve assembly when the handle is in the on configuration, all of which are described in claims 1, 14 and 31 of the U.S. Patent.
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 1-4, 6, 7-8, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herring et al. (7,607,449).
Herring et al. disclose a faucet system comprising: a valve assembly 12 configured for positioning below a support 42 and configured to connect to two or more fluid lines 14 and 16; a handle 30,31 configured for positioning above the support 42, the handle 30,31 being mechanically coupled to the valve assembly 12 and moveable between an on configuration and an off configuration such that moving the handle 30,31 mechanically operates the valve assembly 12; and a fluid conduit 38 into which fluid from at least one of the two or more fluid lines 14,16 is directed via the valve assembly 12 when the handle 30,31 is in the on configuration.
Regarding claims 2, 16, the valve assembly 12 and the handle 30,31 are configured to be mechanically coupled through a hole extending through the support 42.
Regarding claim 3, the support 42 is a countertop.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, an outer diameter of the fluid conduit 24 is less than a collective outer diameter of the two or more fluid lines 14,16.
Regarding claim 6, the fluid conduit 38 provides the mechanical coupling between the handle 30,31 and the valve assembly 12 such that the fluid conduit translates movement of the handle 30,31 into movement of the valve assembly 12 for mechanically operating the valve assembly 12.
Regarding claim 7, the fluid conduit 38 is an elongated member having a hollow interior through which the fluid from at least one of the two or more fluid lines 14,16 is directed via the valve assembly 12 when the handle 30,31 is in the on configuration.
Regarding claim 8, the elongated member is substantially rigid.
Regarding claim 15, Herring et al. disclose a faucet system comprising: a handle 30,31 configured for positioning above a support 42 and being moveable between an on configuration and an off configuration; and a valve assembly 12 configured for positioning below the support 42 and configured to connect to two or more fluid lines 14 and 16 under the support 42; a fluid conduit 38 (i) fluidly connecting the valve assembly 12 and a location above the support 42 such that fluid from at least one of the two or more fluid lines 14 and 16 is directed into the fluid conduit 38 via the valve assembly 12 when the handle 30,31 is in the on configuration and flows to the location above the support 42, and (ii) providing a mechanical coupling between handle 30,31 and the valve assembly 12 such that the fluid conduit translates movement of the handle 30,31 into movement of the valve assembly 12 for mechanically operating the valve assembly 12 via the handle 30,31.
Regarding claim 19, the handle 30,31 is configured to rotate between the on configuration and the off configuration.
Regarding claim 20, the location above the support 42 comprises a first end of a faucet arm 32, and wherein the system further comprises a handle spool 37 configured to divert fluid from the fluid conduit into the first end of the faucet arm 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 517-270-3735. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754