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 without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 2, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms filed on May 22, 2023, October 13, 2023, March 7, 2024, May 6, 2024, October 9, 2025 and February 9, 2026 are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the aforementioned IDS forms. It is noted that the IDS filed on October 13, 2023 appears to include an error. The Patentee name listed with the US Patent Document citation identified as “B1” does not match the actual Patentee name associated with that document number. It is also noted that the content of the cited document does not appear to be relevant to the instant application. If Applicant desires to have the correct document considered during prosecution of the instant application, Applicant should investigate and resolve this discrepancy. It is further noted that legible copies of a great number of the Foreign Patent Documents listed on the IDS filed May 22, 2023 are not found in the file, as is required for consideration. Thus, those citations (i.e., A652, A714, A716, A717 and A719-A811) have been lined through on the signed copy thereof, and have not been considered.
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:
“second spray mechanism” in claim 1;
“plurality of members” in claim 1;
“at least one lighting element” in claims 1, 6 and 12;
“control unit” in claims 8 and 17; and
“features configured to allow selective coupling of the replaceable fins...” in claim 16.
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 6 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, on line 2, the recitation, “the at least one lighting element” is somewhat unclear. Although claim 6 introduces “at least one lighting element”, claim 1 (from which claim 6 directly depends) also introduces “at least one lighting element”, which is separate and distinct from that introduced in claim 6. Thus, it is somewhat unclear as to which “at least one lighting element”, the recitation on line 2 of claim 6 is referring.
Regarding claim 16, on lines 2-3, the recitation, “the showerhead” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0028130.
As to claim 1, Sato shows a showerhead (see Figs. 10 and 11; and paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) comprising: a first spray mechanism (1’) comprising a first plurality of nozzles (17’1 and/or 17’2) and at least one lighting element (20); a second spray mechanism (29) separate from and located a distance away from the first spray mechanism; and a surrounding structure (2) comprising a plurality of members (14) extending between the first spray mechanism and the second spray mechanism such that the first spray mechanism is at least partially surrounded by the surrounding structure.
As to claim 2, Sato shows the showerhead of claim 1, and wherein the plurality of members are a plurality of removable fins (14) providing at least a portion of an overall exterior shape for the showerhead (see again, Figs. 10 and 11). It should be noted that the claim term “fins” is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim which preclude elements “14” of Sato from being applied to the recited “fins”. Also, regarding the “fins” elements as being “removable”, the showerhead shown by Sato is an assembly of parts, with the fins (14) including opposing end portions which are each, respectively, inserted into the first and second spray mechanisms. Thus, they are capable of being removed.
As to claim 3, Sato shows the showerhead of claim 1, and wherein the second spray mechanism has a ring shape and includes a second plurality of nozzles (17; see again, Figs. 10 and 11).
As to claim 4, Sato shows the showerhead of claim 1, and Sato discloses that the first spray mechanism and the second spray mechanism are configured to emit water concurrently (see paragraph [0052]).
As to claim 7, Sato shows the showerhead of claim 1, and wherein the plurality of members are radially oriented with respect to a central longitudinal axis of the showerhead and are spaced apart from each other (see again, Figs. 10 and 11).
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 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., in view of Miller et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0195712.
As to claim 5, Sato shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Sato is silent as to the first spray mechanism including a diffuser for diffusing light from the at least one lighting element, although at least paragraph [0041] of Sato recognizes that diffusing light from the showerhead can provide an aesthetically pleasing effect.
Miller, shows (see, for example: Figs. 2, 13 and 14) and describes (see, for example: paragraphs [0025] and [0055]-[0057]) various embodiments of a showerhead which includes a spray mechanism (100) having at least one lighting element (104), wherein the spray mechanism also includes a diffuser (203, 1304), which may be embodied in a variety of manners (see paragraph [0057]) to diffuse light from the at least one lighting element, in order to enhance the aesthetic effect of the at least one lighting element (see again, paragraph [0025]). 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 showerhead of Sato, so as to include a diffuser with the first spray mechanism for diffusing light from the at least one lighting element, as taught by Miller, thereby enhancing the aesthetic effect of the at least one lighting element.
As to claim 6, Sato shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Sato is silent as to the second spray mechanism including at least one lighting element and a diffuser for diffusing light from the at least one lighting element of the second spray mechanism, although at least paragraph [0041] of Sato recognizes that diffusing light from the showerhead can provide an aesthetically pleasing effect.
Miller, shows (see, for example: Figs. 2, 13 and 14) and describes (see, for example: paragraphs [0025] and [0055]-[0057]) various embodiments of a showerhead which includes a spray mechanism (100) having at least one lighting element (104), wherein the spray mechanism also includes a diffuser (203, 1304), which may be embodied in a variety of manners (see paragraph [0057]) to diffuse light from the at least one lighting element, in order to enhance the aesthetic effect of the at least one lighting element (see again, paragraph [0025]). 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 showerhead of Sato, so as to include at least one lighting element with the second spray mechanism, as well as a diffuser with the second spray mechanism for diffusing light from the at least one lighting element of the second spray mechanism, as taught by Miller, thereby enhancing the aesthetic effect of the at least one lighting element. It should also be noted, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (i.e., providing one or more lighting elements with both spray mechanisms of Sato, as well as diffusers therefor) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA 7 1977).
As to claim 11, Sato shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Sato is silent as to the showerhead further including a hydro-generator.
It should first be noted that it was old and well known in the art of showerheads having elements requiring electric power to include a hydro-generator device in order to provide the required electric power by using energy harvested from water flowing to and through the showerhead, so that the showerhead does not need to be connected to a power mains, thus making the showerhead more efficient and environmentally friendly. Indeed, Miller shows a showerhead which includes elements requiring electric power, and Miller teaches inclusion of a hydro-generator (114) to harvest energy from water flowing to and through the showerhead (see paragraph [0027]). 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 showerhead of Sato, to include a hydro-generator, as taught by Miller, thus providing the required power for at least the at least one lighting element, without needing to connect the showerhead to a power mains, thus simplifying implementation of the device and making it more efficient and environmentally friendly.
Claims 8-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., in view of Hanna et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0208152.
As to claim 8, Sato shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Sato does not show the showerhead further including a speaker and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the at least one lighting element, the speaker, and a flow of water through the nozzles.
Hanna shows a showerhead (see Figs. 11A, 14 and 15) including at least one spray mechanism (10) having at least one lighting element (254), with the showerhead further including a speaker (18) and a control unit (524), wherein the control unit is configured to control the at least one lighting element, the speaker, and a flow of water through the nozzles (see paragraphs [0122]-[0123], [00136]-[0138] and [0160]-[0163]). As is clear from the disclosure of Hanna, inclusion of such elements provides a user with various coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience. 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 showerhead of Sato, so as to further include a speaker and a control unit, and wherein the control unit is configured to control the at least one lighting element, the speaker, and a flow of water through the nozzles, as taught by Hanna, thus providing a user with various coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience.
As to claim 9, Sato, as modified above by Hanna, shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 8, and further, Hanna teaches that the control unit is configured to store programs for emitting light, sound, and water (see paragraphs [0137]-[0138] and [0160]-[0163]).
As to claim 10, Sato, as modified by Hanna, shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 8, and further, Hanna teaches that the control unit is configured to receive a command from at least one of a controller and a digital device (see paragraphs [0071]-[0072], [0104], [0136], [0148], [0160] and [0163]).
As to claim 12, Sato shows a shower assembly (see Figs. 10 and 11; and paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) comprising: a first sprayhead (1’); a second sprayhead (29) separate from the first sprayhead; a plurality of replaceable fins (14) extending between the first and second sprayhead and defining a structure (2) that at least partially surrounds the first sprayhead; and at least one lighting element (20). It should again be noted that the claim term “fins” is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim which preclude elements “14” of Sato from being applied to the recited “fins”. Also, regarding the “fins” elements as being “replaceable”, the shower assembly shown by Sato is an assembly of parts, with the fins (14) including opposing end portions which are each, respectively, inserted into the first and second sprayheads. Thus, they are capable of being removed and replaced. However, Sato does not show the shower assembly further including at least one speaker.
Hanna shows a shower assembly (see Figs. 11A, 14 and 15; and paragraphs [00136]-[0138]) including at least one spray mechanism (10) having, among many other elements having user entertainment value, at least one speaker (18). As is clear from the disclosure of Hanna, inclusion of such elements, such as the at least one speaker, provides a user with various coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience. 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 shower assembly of Sato, so as to further include, for example, at least one speaker, as taught by Hanna, thus providing a user with coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience.
As to claim 13, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified above by Hanna and applied to claim 12, can be configured to hang from a ceiling (see paragraph [0001] of Sato).
As to claim 14, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified above by Hanna and applied to claim 12, is shown wherein the first sprayhead and the second sprayhead are configured to emit water concurrently (see paragraph [0052] of Sato).
As to claim 15, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified above by Hanna and applied to claim 12, is shown wherein the plurality of replaceable fins are oriented radially with respect to a central longitudinal axis of the shower assembly (see again, Figs. 10 and 11 of Sato).
As to claim 16, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified above by Hanna and applied to claim 12, is shown wherein the plurality of replaceable fins include features configured to allow selective coupling of the replaceable fins to components of the shower assembly (as discussed above, the shower assembly shown by Sato is an assembly of parts, with the fins (14) including opposing end features which are each, respectively, inserted into the first and second sprayheads, thus allowing selective coupling of the fins to components of the shower assembly).
As to claim 17, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified by Hanna, shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 12. However, as applied to claim 12, the shower assembly of modified Sato does not further comprise a control unit configured to store programs for the emission of light, sound, and water from the shower assembly.
As discussed above with respect to claim 12, Hanna also shows the shower assembly (see Figs. 11A, 14 and 15) including other elements (i.e., besides the at least one speaker) having user entertainment value, such as a control unit (524) configured to store programs for the emission of light, sound, and water from the shower assembly (see paragraphs [00136]-[0138] and [0160]-[0163]). As also discussed above, it is clear from the disclosure of Hanna that inclusion of such elements provides a user with various coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience. 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 shower assembly of Sato, so as to further include a control unit, as also taught by Hanna, thus further providing a user with coordinated entertainment features so as to enhance a shower experience.
As to claim 18, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified above by Hanna and applied to claim 17, is shown wherein the control unit is configured to receive a command from an electronic device (see paragraphs [0071]-[0072], [0104], [0136], [0148], [0160] and [0163]) of Hanna).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., as modified by Hanna et al. and applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Miller et al.
As to claim 19, the shower assembly of Sato, as modified by Hanna, shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 12. However modified Sato does not show the shower assembly further comprising a hydro-generator.
It should again be noted that it was old and well known in the art of showerheads/shower assemblies having elements requiring electric power to include a hydro-generator device in order to provide the required electric power by using energy harvested from water flowing to and through the shower assembly, so that the shower assembly does not need to be connected to a power mains, thus making the shower assembly more efficient and environmentally friendly. Indeed, Miller shows a shower assembly (see Figs. 2, 13 and 14) which includes elements (e.g. 104) requiring electric power, and Miller teaches inclusion of a hydro-generator (114) to harvest energy from water flowing to and through the shower assembly (see paragraph [0027]). 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 shower assembly of Sato, to include a hydro-generator, as taught by Miller, thus providing power for the elements requiring electric power (e.g. the at least one lighting element and/or the at least one speaker), without needing to connect the shower assembly to a power mains, thus simplifying implementation of the device and making it more efficient and environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752