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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on December 23, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended and Claim 9 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the reference to Delepine still reads on all the claimed feature based on the Examiner’s new interpretation regarding the first shower head.
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: “control element” in claim 1.
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.
The specification is devoid to provide any corresponding structure associated to the limitation “control element”.
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 1-8 and 10-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a first shower head, which comprises, accommodated in a housing of the first shower head, the first group of nozzles and the second group of nozzles, and a plurality of water supply lines, via which water can be supplied to the first shoer head”. The phrase “accommodated in a housing of the first shower head” is positioned such that it is unclear what structure(s) are being accommodated in the housing. It is ambiguous whether: only the first and second groups of nozzles are accommodated in the housing, or both the nozzle groups and the plurality of water supply lines are accommodated in the housing. Due to this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Additionally, the claim recites that the “first shower head … comprises … a plurality of water supply lines.” However, earlier in the claim, the “shower device” is recited as comprising, inter alia, the first shower head and the plurality of water supply lines: 1) forms part of the first shower head, or 2) is separate from the first shower head but part of the overall shower device. This inconsistency renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
Under the principle of compact prosecution, the Examiner reads the first and second groups of nozzles are not formed in a single, monolithic housing at best understood by the Examiner until further clarification by the Applicant.
Claim limitation “control element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid to provide any corresponding structure associated to the limitation “control element”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are also rejected under 112(b) because of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delepine (US 5,060,322) in view of Fazio (US 2021/0372102 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Delepine discloses a shower device for producing at least two water jet patterns (Fig. 6), wherein the shower device comprises a nozzle arrangement for dispensing water with a first group of nozzles (nozzles arranged on 45, see Fig. 6) for producing a first water jet pattern and a second group of nozzles (nozzles arranged on 49, see Fig. 6) for producing a second water jet pattern, a first shower head (45 in conjunction with 49, the claim does not require that the first and second groups of nozzles be formed in a single, monolithic housing. Rather, the limitation is satisfied so long as a shower head structure includes two groups of nozzles capable of producing different water jet patterns. In the reference, both the spraying ramp 45 and the shower rose 49 are part of the same shower room installation and are supplied by the water system. Together, they constitute a shower head arrangement having two distinct groups of nozzles producing different spray patterns), which comprises, accommodated in a housing of the first shower head, the first group of nozzles and the second group of nozzles (nozzles arranged on 45 and 49, see Fig.6), and a plurality of water supply lines (42/43), via which water can be supplied to the first shower head (45 in conjunction with 49), wherein each one of the water supply lines extends from a wall (7) to the first shower head (45/49) and is designed as supply line and spacing units for supplying water to the first shower head (45/49) and for spacing and fastening the first shower head in relation to the wall (7).
However, Delepine does not disclose that wherein the shower device further comprises a control element configured to individually control the first group of nozzles and the second group of nozzles.
Fazio teaches a shower device comprising a control element (62)configured to individually control the first group of nozzles and the second group of nozzles (54/56/58/60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shower device of Delepine, by incorporating control element on each of the group of nozzles as taught by Fazio, for the benefit of achieving different spray patterns (Para. [0028]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that the water supply lines (42/43) are designed as spatially separated water supply lines, which are fastened at a distance from one another to the first shower head or are configured to be fastened at a distance from one another to the wall (7).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that the first group of nozzles comprises a plurality of first nozzles for dispensing water for the first water jet pattern and the second group of nozzles comprises a plurality of second nozzles for dispensing water for the second water jet pattern (nozzles arranged on 45 and 49, see Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that the first shower head (45/49) comprises a distribution system for distributing water from the water supply lines to the first group of nozzles and second group of nozzles (nozzles arranged on 45 and 49, see Fig. 6), which distribution system comprises a first distribution line (47) for distributing water to the first nozzles and a second distribution line (second 47, Fig. 6) for distributing water to the second nozzles.
With regard to claim 7, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that the first shower head (45/49) comprises a modular main body, which is formed from a plurality of interconnected main body modules (Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that shower device comprises a second shower head (8) with a third group of nozzles for producing a third water jet pattern, which shower head comprises at least one third nozzle (27), and a third water supply line group (41) with at least one water supply line, wherein the first shower head (45/49) and the second shower head (8) are spaced apart from each other at a shower distance, wherein the water supply lines of the first water supply line group and the second water supply line group space the first shower head and the second shower head apart from each other (Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above. Delepine further discloses that the shower device comprises a mounting arrangement with a mounting body (51) for mounting on the wall (Fig. 6) on which the first shower head (45/49) is arranged via the water supply lines (42/43) of the first water supply line group and the second water supply line group and on which the second shower head is arranged (Fig. 6) .
With regard to claim 13, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that the shower device comprises an illumination arrangement (16) for illuminating at least one of the water jet patterns by light with at least one light source.
With regard to claim 14, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that a method for producing a water jet pattern with a shower device according to claim 1.
With regard to claim 15, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Delepine further discloses that a first water jet pattern produced with the shower device is conical, and/or wherein a second water jet pattern produced with the shower device is formed in a sinking manner (Fig. 6), and/or wherein a third water jet pattern produced with the shower device is cylindrical.
With regard to claim 16, the device of Delepine as modified by Fazio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Delepine further discloses that a shower system with a shower device and a wall to which the shower device is fastened, wherein the shower device is designed according to claim 1.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752