DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reeder (US 10480165) and with McNerney (US 2006/0231140) as incorporated by reference therein (see Reeder Col 36 ln 35–40);
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder as applied to claims 1 above.
Reeder (with McNerney) discloses in claim 1: A system (at 1708 and see figures 60-80 of Reeder (herein after -R-)) for converting a mechanical main valve body (14 figure 2 of McNerney (herein after -M-)) of a shower assembly to an electromechanical main valve body (best seen in -R- of figure 70, at 1802/1902/1906 that work with the mechanical valve body 1914 of -R- which is the same as 16 of -M- figure 3) the system comprising: a mechanical valve body (see -R-/-M-, 1914/16 respectively) comprising: a cold water inlet (22-M-) configured to receive cold water, a hot water (20-M) inlet configured to receive hot water (and see ph 0023 of -M-), and a connection interface configured to interchangeably receive one of the mechanical main valve body or the electromechanical main valve body (i.e. they both can connect to the housing portion of 16-M- inter-operably); wherein the electromechanical main valve body (1802/1902/1906) is couplable to the mechanical valve body (1914, where 1802 fits into the main housing 16 of 1914, and 1902 and 1906 each fit to 1914 via connections at 1916/1918 figure 69), the electromechanical main valve body comprises: a first solenoid valve (1904a-c) fluidly coupled to a first outlet (the outlet at 1916) configured to direct mixed water (from the mixing valve 1714 figure 71A) to a first user device (i.e the over head shower 1704 via 1904a, Col 36 ln 1-20) in replacement of a second outlet of the mechanical main valve body (merely the outlet of 1916 that connects to the shower without the interposed solenoid valve), the first solenoid valve configured to selectively permit the mixed water to flow through the first outlet (i.e. to the shower), and a second solenoid valve (1908a-d) fluidly coupled to a third outlet (via 1918 or those that extend to the body sprays 1706) configured to direct the mixed water to a second user device (id) in replacement of a fourth outlet (i.e. of the tub outlet from that of 24 or 26) of the mechanical main valve body (of -M-), the second solenoid valve configured to selectively permit the mixed water to flow through the third outlet (as shown.)
Reeder discloses in claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the electromechanical main valve body further comprises: a first base (base of 1902) sealingly engageable with the connection interface (inserted into 1916 figure 69) in replacement of a second base (i.e. the tube to the shower head) of the mechanical main valve body (of 16 of -M-); a mixing valve (at 1714 figure 71a) configured to receive the cold water and the hot water and facilitate mixing of the cold water and the hot water; and a drive (1736) coupled to the mixing valve and configured to control the mixing of the cold water and the hot water in the mixing valve.
Reeder discloses in claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the shower assembly comprises a cover assembly (1708 figure 66 and figure 61a) comprising: a battery compartment (1750) configured to receive one or more batteries (for example 1766 figure 64) operable to provide an electric power to the first solenoid valve (via the controller 1720, per Col 36 ln 15-20) and the second solenoid valve; an escutcheon plate (1950 figure 66); and a control module (1720 figure 61a) configured to selectively control a delivery of the electric power from the one or more batteries to the first solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve (as shown.)
Reeder discloses in claim 4: The system of claim 3, wherein the escutcheon plate comprises a user interface (at 1798) configured to provide a user with a method to communicate with the shower assembly, the user interface comprising one or more buttons (1753/1738) configured to provide the user with an option to switch a water outlet between the first outlet and the third outlet (for the purpose of cleaning.)
Reeder discloses in claim 5: The system of claim 1, wherein the electromechanical main valve body is substantially free of wiring to an external power source (i.e. via the batteries of 1750.) Reeder figures 60-80 do not explicitly disclose: a wireless power setup; but considering that Reeder teaches: using a hydro-generator to recharge a solenoid valve battery Col ln 55-60, for the purpose of for example, plug and play standalone valve operation as suggested by Reeder;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide the Reeder system figure 60-80, with a hydro-generator to recharge a solenoid valve battery as taught in Reeder, and all for the purpose of plug and play stand alone valve operation without the need for additional wiring.
Reeder discloses in claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the shower assembly is operable to be installed as a self-contained, unit entirely within a wall of a shower compartment (the unit as seen in figures 60-80 is self contained and has a 120 ac power supply and is operable via backup batteries for 5 years.) Reeder figures 60-80 do not explicitly disclose: a wireless setup; but considering that Reeder teaches: using a hydro-generator to recharge a solenoid valve battery Col ln 55-60, for the purpose of for example, plug and play standalone valve operation as suggested by Reeder;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide the Reeder system figure 60-80, with a hydro-generator to recharge a solenoid valve battery as taught in Reeder, and all for the purpose of plug and play stand alone valve operation without the need for additional wiring.
Reeder discloses in claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein: the mechanical valve body is an in-situ mechanical valve body (as discussed the unit is a mechanical valve body that is installed into the wall cavity on site); and the mechanical main valve body can be replaced with the electromechanical main valve body without removing or replacing the in-situ mechanical valve body (the units are interchangeable.)
Reeder discloses in claim 8: The system of claim 1, further comprising a solenoid valve (1904a-c) and diverter module (one of the solenoid valve bodies that extend to the shower head) configured to selectively deliver the mixed water to a third user device (shower handle 1702), the solenoid valve and diverter module comprising a third solenoid valve (1904a-c) disposed between the third outlet and the first user device and electrically coupled to one or more batteries (as discussed via the controller.)
Reeder discloses in claim 9: The system of claim 8, wherein upon energizing the third solenoid valve, the mixed water is diverted to the third user device (via direction of the controller 1720.)
Reeder discloses in claim 10: The system of claim 1, further comprising an outlet expansion module (fluid pathways out of 1906), the outlet expansion module comprising: an inlet for coupling to one of the third outlet (at 1918) or the fourth outlet; a fifth outlet (provided to 1908a-d) coupled to a third solenoid valve (1908a-d) configured to direct the mixed water to a third user device (1706a-d); a sixth outlet (provided to 1908a-d) coupled to a fourth solenoid valve (1908a-d) configured to direct the mixed water to a fourth user device (1706a-d); and a seventh outlet (provided to 1908a-d) coupled to a fifth solenoid valve (1908a-d) configured to direct the mixed water to a fifth user device (1706a-d.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753