DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: separating elements in claims 1, 5, 12, 17 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 19-20 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.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the limitation "the cylindrical core jet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A cylindrical core jet is recited in claim 2, upon which claims 19 and 20 do not depend, making it unclear whether the limitation is supposed to be the core jet, or whether claims 19 and 20 should depend from claim 2, rendering the claims vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102008038730 A1 (‘730) in view of Nagata 2018/0094414.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 5 and 18, ‘730 teaches a jet regulator (5, as shown in figures 11 and 12), comprising: an outlet structure (13) through which a jet (flow through 13) is adapted to emerge, the outlet structure (13) formed with an outlet stage (honeycomb 13), the outlet stage (13) having a peripheral wall that protrudes longitudinally from an incidence side of the outlet structure (14 protrudes peripherally about 13 in figure 12); the outlet structure (14) includes an outer ring region (outer ring in figure 12 below) and an inner core region (inner core in figure 12 below) through which water of the jet is adapted to emerge simultaneously in use (homogenous jet as described at first full paragraph on page 4), an inner diameter of the peripheral wall being greater than an outer diameter of the outer ring region (14 around 13 such that the diameter must be greater in figure 12); the outlet structure (13) includes separating elements (dividers of honeycomb shown in figure 12) by which the outlet structure (13) is divided into a multiplicity of cells (passageways between each wall of 13 shown in figure 12), each said cell including one exit opening (outlet of each cell of 13 in figure 12). However, ‘730 does not teach that at least a part of the separating elements which are outwardly running in the outer ring region are thicker than at least a part of the separating elements in the inner core region, or that the outlet structure is formed integrally with the outlet stage. Nagata teaches an outlet structure (6) where at least a part of the separating elements which are outwardly running in the outer ring region are thicker than at least a part of the separating elements in the inner core region (separating elements 62 in figure 5 are at least twice as thick as separating elements 64 in core region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the separating elements of ‘730 thicker than the core separating elements, as taught by Nagata, in order to minimize the number of separating elements in the outer ring region to allow the core region to be near floating (paragraph [0082]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the outlet structure and outlet stage of ‘730 in view of Nagata integral, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction instead of the structure taught by ‘730 in view of Nagata would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of ‘370
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the core region is adapted to define a cylindrical core jet of the jet (homogeneous flow, first full paragraph of page 4, where the perimeter of the core is round such that flow exiting the core will be cylindrical).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the outer ring region in a circumferential direction defines in each case delimited jet arms of the jet (a jet arm will be produced by flow exiting each hole of the outer ring of 13 in figure 12 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the jet arms are connected to the cylindrical core jet (formation of a homogenous flow, first full paragraph of page 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the outer ring region is separated from the inner core region by a circumferential separating web (a ring is present between the core and outer ring regions in figure 12 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, ‘730 in view of Nagata does not teach that the circumferential separating web has a greater thickness than at least one further circumferential separating web in the inner core region. Nagata teaches a circumferential separating web (64 adjacent to 62) that is thicker than another separating web (64 between cells 65 in figure 5) in the core region (as shown in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the separating web of ‘730 in view of Nagata thicker than the core separating webs, as taught by Nagata, in order to maximize flow through the outer ring region without reducing the strength of the jet regulator (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches a distribution region (region at 11) connected upstream of the outlet structure (area at 11 upstream of 13), said distribution region is adapted to guide flowing water both to the outer ring region and to the inner core region (first full paragraph on page 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the distribution region comprises a chamber (chamber that holds screen 11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the distribution region comprises a flow obstacle (screen 11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the flow obstacle is made of a porous material (screen 11).
Regarding Dependent Claims 12 and 13, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Nagata further teaches that there is no taper in the core region (core shows no taper for elements 64 in figures 3 or 4). However, ‘730 in view of Nagata does not teach that the separating elements of the ring region have an inclined section such that the exit openings taper. Nagata teaches that the openings in the ring region (66) taper radially inward in the downstream direction (as shown in figure 7A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to taper the separating elements inward in a downward direction of ‘730 in view of Nagata in the same way as the outer wall of Nagata, in order to contract the water entering the outer ring of the jet regulator (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, ‘730 in view of Nagata does not teach that the circumferential separating web between the outer ring region and the inner core region is at most as thick, as a radial extent of a smallest one of the exit openings in the outer ring region. Nagata teaches a circumferential separating web (64 adjacent to 62) that is less thick than the radial extent of the outer ring region exit openings (paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the separating web of ‘730 in view of Nagata thinner than the radial extent of the outer ring region exit openings, as taught by Nagata, in order to maximize flow through the outer ring region without reducing the strength of the jet regulator (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the exit openings in the outer ring region have a ring segment shape (holes through outer region in figure 12 above shown as segments of the ring that defines outer ring region).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the exit openings in the outer ring region are evenly distributed (holes in outer ring region in figure 12 above are shown evenly distributed about the ring).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the at least the part of the separating elements which are outwardly running in the outer ring region that are thicker are radially aligned (all of the separating elements in outer region in figure 12 above are radially aligned extending from the center of the jet regulator).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the method for dividing an emerging jet from a jet regulator (see rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising: providing the jet regulator (5) as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and dividing an emerging jet of water that is discharged through the jet regulator into a core jet and jet arms running on the cylindrical core jet (flow exits through all holes of 13 such that a core and jet arms form flowing through core and outer ring region in figure 12 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, ‘730 in view of Nagata teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and ‘730 further teaches the jet arms adhere to the cylindrical core jet, and intersect one another (flows combine into a homogenous flow, first paragraph of page 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 (571) 270-1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752