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 .
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 1-29 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 18 recite the broad recitation one, and the claim also recites two or more which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation hydraulic elements, and the claim also recites in particular sensors and actuators, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "as the case may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 5, line 3, the limitation “channels” is an improper double inclusion of the internal channels put forth in claim 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 10 and “the first end” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation a pressure of less than three bar, and the claim also recites a pressure of less than two bar, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation less than 30 milliliters, and the claim also recites in particular less than twenty milliliters, in particular less than ten milliliters, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 5 and “the first end” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The terms “high” and “low” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” and “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What values fall within the range of “high” and “low.” The same rejection applies to additional instances in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the mixer valve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation applies to additional instances of aligning limitations.
Claims 27 and 29 recite the limitation "the hose" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation at least twice, and the claim also recites in particular three times, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12-15, 17-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gjosa (WO2018122163).
Regarding claim 1, Gjosa discloses a water conditioning unit for a washing device, the water conditioning unit being configured to provide, controlled by a user, water at different flow rates and with different sprain characteristics and with additives admixed to the water, the water conditioning unit comprising:
an inlet fitting for attaching the water conditioning unit to a water supply (Page 26, lines 12-20, the facility includes connections for attaching the conditioning unit and water supply);
an outlet fitting (the outlet of 9) for attaching the water conditioning unit to a dispensing unit (6) (Page 33, lines 1-3);
one, two, or more docking adapters (Page 33, lines 10-13, the opening of the consumable unit of the facility 26 that receives the containers) configured for attaching, one, two or more additive containers (45) (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Page 33, lines 10-13, the facility includes an opening of the consumable unit that receives containers).
Regarding claim 2, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 1 wherein hydraulic elements guiding and controlling a flow of water between the inlet fitting and the outlet fitting are implemented in a hydraulic assembly (Figure 1 ), the hydraulic assembly comprising a total manifold ( 26) and hydraulic elements, in particular sensors (Page 5, lines 15-17) and actuators (7) controlling the flow of water, the total manifold ( 26 ) comprising internal channels (9) guiding the flow of water and carrying the hydraulic elements (Page 25, lines 9-10; Figure 1 depicts the various actuators and sensors arranged about the supply conduit 9).
Regarding claim 12, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein a pressure reducer (8) is arranged to limit a pressure at a branching point (the branching point that connects lines 5.1-5.3 and 8), where it branches into a spray water channel (5.2) and an admixing channel (5.1) (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight, Figure 1, The overpressure valve is interpreted as a pressure reducer, as it is positioned to lower the pressure of the branch line, as fluid flows to the spray water channel and admixing channel), in particular to a pressure of less than three bar, in particular to a pressure of two bar (The valve is capable of performing the claimed function, dependent upon a desired pressure in the system, and extent of discharge of the overpressure valve).
Regarding claim 14, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein the total manifold (26) further comprises a mixing manifold arranged on or being part of the second plate (page 16, line mixing device and channel 5.2) (all of the element sit on the second plate of the cart), the mixing manifold comprising an admixing channel (5.2) arranged to guide a flow of water from the second end to the first end (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The channel by structure is capable of guiding fluid as it its propelled) with additive inlets (The inlets from the containers 31) arranged along the admixing channel (Figure 4) for admixing additives to the flow of water (channel (5.2) arranged to guide a flow of water from the second end to the first end (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The inlets are capable of performing the claimed function).
Regarding claim 15, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit unit of claim 14, wherein a volume of the admixing channel, from the first additive inlet, seen in the direction of flow, to a junction (the junction between the inlet and the channel), but is silent as to whether the volume is less than thirty millilitres, in particular less than twenty millilitres, in particular less than ten millilitres (Page 3, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein all hydraulic elements guiding and controlling a flow of water between the inlet and the outlet fitting are arranged inside a compact base (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 17, wherein the base unit is configured for the, one, two or more additive contains to be inserted into and connected to corresponding docking adapters in a vertical direction (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2,wherein the base unit comprises user interface elements comprising additive selecting elements, in particular one selector button for each docking adapter or additive source (Figure 3, the device includes more than two selector buttons), and an additive concentration controller for setting an amount of additive delivered from one or more selected docking adapters or additive sources when the water conditioning unit is in an additive dispensing mode (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Page 32, lines 5-11), and optionally admixing mode selecting elements, and optionally indicator elements, in particular indicator light rings, indicating the one or more selected docking adapter or additive source.
Regarding claim 21, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit or claim 20, wherein the user interface is configured to allow for more than one docking adapter or additive source to be selected, and wherein a controller is configured to (the limitations that follow are interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight, for a particular setting of the additive concentration controller, wherein:
if a single docking adapter or additive source is selected, to control the amount of additive delivered by this single docking adapter or additive source to be equal to a reference amount corresponding to this particular setting of the additive concentration controller (Page 32, lines 5-11, the controller may change set points, switch between consumables, and adjust the amount of a consumable added); and
if two or more docking adapters or additive sources are selected, to control the total amount of additive delivered by these two or more docking adapters or additive sources to be equal to the same reference amount corresponding to this particular setting of the additive concentration controller (Page 32, lines 5-11, the controller may change set points, switch between consumables, and adjust the amount of a consumable added).
Regarding claim 22, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, configured to implement, for at least one of the additives, one or more of the following admixing modes:
a continuous admixing mode, wherein, the flow of the additive and the water is continuous;
a pulsed additive admixing mode, wherein the flow of the additive is pulsed;
a pulsed water admixing mode, wherein the flow of the water is pulsed (Page 32, lines 5-11, the system can do a repeating cycle, which Examiner interprets as a pulsed cycle).
Regarding claim 23, Gjosa discloses a method for operating the water conditioning unit of claim 20 comprising the steps of:
according to a user input, selecting a single docking adapter or additive source, or selecting two or more docking adapters or additive sources (Page 32, lines 5-11, switching between additives or adjusting the amount of additive);
and for a particular setting of the additive concentration controller:
if a single docking adapter or additive source is selected, controlling the amount of additive delivered by this single docking adapter or additive source to be equal to a reference amount corresponding to this particular setting of the additive concentration controller (Page 32, lines 5-11, the set-point and amount of a consumable is controlled); and
if two or more docking adapters or additive sources are selected, controlling the total amount of additive delivered by these two or more docking adapters or additive sources to be equal to the same reference amount corresponding to this particular setting of the additive concentration controller (Page 32, lines 5-11, the set-point and amount of each consumable is controlled).
Pertaining to Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 13
Regarding claim 2, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 1 wherein hydraulic elements guiding and controlling a flow of water between the inlet fitting and the outlet fitting are implemented in a hydraulic assembly (Figure 1 ), the hydraulic assembly comprising a total manifold ( 1) and hydraulic elements, in particular sensors (Page 5, lines 15-17) and actuators (7) controlling the flow of water, the total manifold ( 26 ) comprising internal channels (9) guiding the flow of water and carrying the hydraulic elements (Page 25, lines 9-10; Figure 1 depicts the various actuators and sensors arranged about the supply conduit 9).
Regarding claim 3, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein the total manifold ( 26 ) functions as a support structure holding and supporting the hydraulic elements (Figure 4 and Page 33, lines 1-15, The manifold includes all of the elements encased within its body).
Regarding claim 4, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein the internal channels are arranged inside the total manifold, guiding water and, as the case may be, also additives, between the hydraulic elements Page 33, lines 1-15the manifold includes all of the elements for the claimed functions encased within its body).
Regarding claim 6, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein, for one or more of the hydraulic elements, the total manifold is shaped to form a functional part of the hydraulic element (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; the manifold is shaped to functionally protect the hydraulic elements).
Regarding claim 7, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 6, wherein the total manifold is shaped to form at least one valve seat for a hydraulic element that implements a valve function (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; the shape of the manifold makes it capable of being used as a valve seat for a hydraulic element that performs a valve function; The receiving portion for the container is shaped in a manner where it may serve as a valve seat between the portion and the container).
Regarding claim 8 Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 6, wherein the total manifold is shaped to form at least one flow restrictor for restricting a flow rate through one of the internal channels of the total manifold (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use and therefore afforded limited patentable weight, At the point of discharge from the manifold to the tube the shape provides for flow to be restricted dependent upon the size of the internal tubing of the manifold and the size of the receiving tube)
Regarding claim 9, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein the hydraulic assembly has an elongated shape (Figure 1 ), with a first end (the end with the inlet fittings) and a second end opposed to the 1st end (figure 2 the end of line 29), the inlet fitting and the outlet fitting both being arranged at the first end (Figure 1 Depicts the inlet and the outlet being at the first end, with the portion on the exterior being the second end).
Regarding claim 13, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of client 2 wherein a flow restrictor is arranged to further limit a flow in the spray water channel (Page 31, lines 1-6 the spray is configured to be limited at an outlet of the spray water channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gjosa or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gjosa.
Regarding claim 10, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein, inside the hydraulic assembly, a high flow water channel (Page 19, lines 8-17, the assembly may include a second kind of outlet that discharges at a not low through flow rate; Examiner interprets this as a high flow rate) controlled by a high flow valve (the valve of line 5.2), constitutes a shortest flow path for the water flowing from the inlet fitting to the outlet fitting (Figure 1, line 5.2 it's shorter than line 5.1 ) that are implemented in the hydraulic assembly.
Should it be found that Gjosa fails to disclose the valve of line 5.2 being the high flow valve, it would have been obvious to to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange line 5.2 and the valve controlling line 5.2 as the high flow line and valve, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 2, wherein, inside the hydraulic assembly, an initial spray flow path leads from the inlet fitting to a branch point common and branches into a spray water channel and an admixing channel, the spray water channel being controlled by a plain water valve and leading to a junction that, in turn, leads to the outlet fitting, the admixing channel being controlled by a mixer valve and leading to the second end and from there into an admixing section of the ad mixing channel, the admixing section leading back in the direction of the first end come to the junction (Examiners Annotated Figure 1).
Should it be found that the limitations require the ad mixing channel to positively discharge add mixed fluid, Page 29, lines 4-15 suggest that the consumable unit may be arranged as necessary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the consumable within the admix channel as claimed, since it has been held that arrangement of parts ...since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjosa alone, or further in view of Maddux (US 6,173,458).
Regarding claim 5, Gjosa discloses the unit of claim 2, wherein the total manifold comprises a first plate (top plate of the cart) and second plate (bottom plate of the cart), attached to one another (Figure 4), with channels guiding the flow of water bring arranged between the two plates and being defined by hollow spaces between the two plates (The disclosure suggests the claimed structure, as the elements of the system are all within the cart, and the cart appears to include an upper and lower plate defining it box structure).
Should it be found that Gjosa discloses the claimed structure, Maddux discloses manifold that includes upper and lower plates (Figure 3, 60), hollow spaces between the two plates and channels (170, 172) guiding the flow of water arranged therebetween (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gjosa with the disclosures of Maddox, providing the total manifold to include upper and lower plates (Figure 3, 60), hollow spaces between the two plates and channels (of Gjosa, Figure 1) guiding the flow of water arranged therebetween (Maddux, Figure 3), as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of structure for containment of the elements of the spray structure, in a system where the structure of the containment mechanism is not a critical element.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjosa.
Regarding claim 19, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 17, wherein the base unit is configured for additive containers arranged in a line to be inserted into and connected to corresponding docking adapters in a vertical direction (Figure 4), but fails to disclose that the device is configured for three or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gjosa to include provision for 3 additive containers, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis, 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 24, Gjosa discloses a dispensing unit for use in combination with the water conditioning unit of claim 1, comprising a showerhead (6) with a spray outlet (2.2) and a high-flow outlet (2.1),
the spray outlet being configured to create a spray of droplets at a spray flow rate (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; the presence of one outlet provides for a lower flow rate),
the high-flow outlet being configured to create a jet of water at a high-flow flow rate (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; the presence of two outlet provides for a higher flow rate), but is silent as to whether the difference in flow rate is twice or three times that of the spray flow rate.
Gjosa discloses that the flow rate may be optimized to a higher rate for an individual channel with use of a pump (Page 25, line 17-Page 26, line 6). Gjosa is concerned with optimizing the flow rate of a facility, in order to abide by facility guidelines (Abstract). The flow-rate is put forth as a result effective variable, as the value of the flow determines compliance with guidelines. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Gjosa device to have a flow rate within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the rate of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gjosa by making the difference in flow rate is twice or three times that of the spray flow rate as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25, Gjosa discloses the dispensing unit of claim 24, comprising an additive button for setting an operation mode of the mixer valve and the plain water valve for the water conditioning unit to deliver either water through the spray water channel, or water admixed with additive through the admixing channel (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Page 25, lines 1-13, the valves of the consumable and other elements may be turned on and off to deliver plain or admixed water).
Regarding claim 26, Gjosa discloses the dispensing unit of claim 24 ,comprising a flow selector (21) for setting an operation mode of the high-flow valve (valve 7 of the high flow channel) and the mixer valve (25) or plain water valve (valve 7 of the lower flow channel), as the case may be (Page 25, lines 7-14), for the water conditioning unit (The limitations that follow are interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight):
to deliver water through the high-flow water channel when the flow selector is in a high flow position (The structure provides for the claimed function), or
to deliver water through either the spray water channel or the admixing channel, as the case may be, when the flow selector is in a spray position (The structure provides for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 27, Gjosa discloses the dispensing unit of claim 26 wherein the flow selector is configured to operate a diverter (24) to guide a flow of water from the hose (29):
to the high flow outlet when the flow selector is in the high-flow position or
to the spray outlet when the flow selector is in the spray position (Page 33, lines 13-15, the measuring device is configured to determine a concentration of a consumable diverted to either of the spray outlets, dependent upon which flow mode and water valve is in operation).
Regarding claim 28, Gjosa discloses a dispensing unit comprising a showerhead (6) with a spray outlet (2.1) and a high-flow outlet (2.2), the spray out let being configured to create a spray of droplets at a spray flow rate, by creating two or more colliding jets of water (Page 31, lines 1-3)
the high-flow outlet being configured to create a jet of water a high flow rate (Page 26, lines 3-6, each outlet is configured to receive fluid at a desired rate, based upon a setting of the pump), but is silent as to whether the difference in flow rate is twice or three times that of the spray flow rate.
Gjosa discloses that the flow rate may be optimized to a higher rate for an individual channel with use of a pump (Page 25, line 17-Page 26, line 6). Gjosa is concerned with optimizing the flow rate of a facility, in order to abide by facility guidelines (Abstract). The flow-rate is put forth as a result effective variable, as the value of the flow determines compliance with guidelines. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Gjosa device to have a flow rate within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the rate of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gjosa by making the difference in flow rate is twice or three times that of the spray flow rate as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, Gjosa discloses the dispensing unit of claim 28, comprising a flow selector (21) configured to operate a diverter (24) to guide a flow of water from the hose (29):
to the high flow outlet when the flow selector is in the high-flow position or
to the spray outlet when the flow selector is in the spray position (Page 29, lines 4-9, the measuring device is configured to determine a concentration of a consumable diverted to either of the spray outlets, dependent upon which flow mode and water valve is in operation).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjosa in view of Samain (WO2018122223).
Regarding claim 16, Gjosa discloses the water conditioning unit of claim 14, comprising two or more pumps with their axes of rotation at least approximately at a right angle to a direction of the admixing channel (Page 17, line 5, the mixing device may include at least one pump; Examiner interprets the disclosure as suggesting the possibility of two or more pumps), but fails to disclose that the pumps are peristaltic, the pumps are arranged in a row, or wherein the two outermost pumps are arranged to turn in opposite directions.
Samain discloses a device wherein each individual additive container (21, 22) includes a pump (26) (Figure 1), wherein the pumps are peristaltic pumps (page 20, line 24), wherein the pumps are arranged in a row (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gjosa with the disclosures of Samain, providing the unit to include two or more peristaltic pumps arranged in a row, as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision for addition of fluid into the water flow, in a system where the additive structure is not a critical element.
Gjosa in view of Samain further discloses a system wherein the pumps are arranged approximately at a right angle (as best understood; Samain, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gjosa, providing the pumps arranged to turn in opposite directions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 O. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752