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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18426662 filed 1/30/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-8, 11, & 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 4:
The recitation “a series” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - the series - -.
Regarding Claim 6:
The recitation “a subset” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - a respective subset - -.
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “centre” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - center - -.
The recitation “another subset” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - another subset of the plurality of nozzles - -.
Regarding Claim 8:
The recitation “a series” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for - - the series - -.
The recitation “each being” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for - - each different
subset being - -.
The recitation “patten” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - pattern - -.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitation “a subset” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - a respective subset - -.
The recitation “centre” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - center - -.
The recitation “another subset, comprising:” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - another subset of the plurality of nozzles, the method further comprising: - -.
The recitation “a centre” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - the center - -.
Regarding Claim 13:
The recitation “wherein distributor” is believed to be in error for - - wherein the distributor - -.
Regarding Claim 14:
The recitation “wherein distributor” is believed to be in error for - - wherein the distributor - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
“a control circuit… adapted for controlling the distributor assembly such that the distributor assembly provides the water flow selectively to a series of different subsets of the plurality of nozzles” in claim 1; and
“a pulsator for creating a pulsating water flow” in claim 3.
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 § 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 1-2, 6-8, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Urso 20170128960.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, D’Urso teaches a multi spray pattern showerhead assembly (Figs. 2a-9) comprising:
a housing (enclosure 5) having an inlet port at a first end thereof (6 at a first end), the inlet port being adapted for mounting to a water source connection (para. [0022]);
an outlet assembly mounted to a second end of the housing (12/13 at a second end), the outlet assembly comprising a plurality of nozzles (4/13);
a distributor assembly (7/8/9/10/11) connected to the outlet assembly, the distributor assembly being adapted for receiving a water flow from the inlet port and for selectively providing the water flow to at least one subset of the plurality of nozzles (paras. [0007] & [0022]); and,
a control circuit (Fig. 8, processor and memory) connected to the distributor assembly, the control circuit being adapted for controlling the distributor assembly such that the distributor assembly provides the water flow selectively to a series of different subsets of the plurality of nozzles (paras. [0007] & [0022]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, D’Urso further teaches the distributor assembly comprises at least an electromechanical component for selectively providing the water flow (solenoid valves 9; para. [0022]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, D’Urso further teaches the plurality of nozzles is arranged in an array having a predetermined number of rows and columns and wherein each row and each column is associated with a subset of nozzles (Fig. 3, array of spray holes 4/13, array defined by rows and columns associated with respective subsets of spray holes 4/13, the rows/columns/respective subsets of nozzles are interpreted as not including the center-most spray hole 4/13 and the row in which it is positioned).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, D’Urso further teaches at least one nozzle in close proximity to a centre of the array is associated with another subset (center-most spray hole 4/13 in Fig. 3, associated with another subset of at least the center-most spray hole 4/13 and the row of spray holes 4/13 in which the center-most spray hole 4/13 is positioned).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, D’Urso further teaches providing multi spray patterns (para. [0007]) using the showerhead assembly according to claim 1, comprising:
receiving the water flow at the inlet port (para. [0022]);
the control circuit providing control signals to the distributor assembly (para. [0026]); and,
the distributor assembly providing the water flow selectively to a series of different subsets of the plurality of nozzles with each being associated with a respective spray patten (paras. [0007] & [0022]).
While D’Urso teaches an apparatus rather than a method, it has been held that “if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device,” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP 2212.02. D’Urso’s apparatus would, in its normal and usual operation, necessarily perform the claimed method, as discussed above. Therefore, claim 8 is anticipated by D’Urso.
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, D’Urso further teaches the plurality of nozzles is arranged in an array having a predetermined number of rows and columns and wherein each row and each column is associated with a subset of nozzles (Fig. 3, array of spray holes 4/13, array defined by rows and columns associated with respective subsets of spray holes 4/13, the rows/columns/respective subsets of nozzles are interpreted as not including the center-most spray hole 4/13 and the row in which it is positioned) and wherein at least one nozzle in close proximity to a centre of the array is associated with another subset (center-most spray hole 4/13 in Fig. 3, associated with another subset of at least the center-most spray hole 4/13 and the row of spray holes 4/13 in which the center-most spray hole 4/13 is positioned), comprising: the distributor assembly providing the water flow selectively to a series of rows (changing spray patterns will cause water flow to be selectively provided to a series of some number of rows); the distributor assembly providing the water flow selectively to a series of columns (changing spray patterns will cause water flow to be selectively provided to a series of some number of columns); and, the distributor assembly providing the water flow selectively to the at least one nozzle in close proximity to a centre of the array (by changing spray patterns, the center-most spray hole 4/13 will be selectively provided water flow). See paras. [0007] & [0022].
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, D’Urso further teaches distributor assembly provides the water flow to a series of successive rows (water provided from 10 to spray holes 4/13 by tubing 11 to respective arrays, thus water will be provided to a series of successive rows in the respective arrays to which water is supplied as the spray pattern is changed, note that the term “successive” only requires neighboring rows, not switching particular rows on and then off successively, and neighboring rows will be simultaneously supplied water as discussed above; paras. [0007], [0022]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, D’Urso further teaches distributor assembly provides the water flow to a series of successive columns (water provided from 10 to spray holes 4/13 by tubing 11 to respective arrays, thus water will be provided to a series of successive columns in the respective arrays to which water is supplied as the spray pattern is changed, note that the term “successive” only requires neighboring columns, not switching particular columns on and then off successively, and neighboring columns will be simultaneously supplied water as discussed above; paras. [0007], [0022]).
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.
Claims 3-4, 9-10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Urso, as applied to claims 2, 8, & 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Chung 20200078802.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, D’Urso teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 2, but D’Urso fails to expressly teach the distributor assembly comprises a pulsator for creating a pulsating water flow.
Chung teaches a showerhead (Fig. 1) which can be controlled to provide various spray modes (para. [0022]) including a pulsing spray mode, which is provided via the movement of protrusions 23 with spray holes 30 (see Fig. 6), which corresponds with the recited pulsator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Urso’s assembly such that the distributor assembly comprises a pulsator for creating a pulsating water flow, as taught by Chung, in order to provide a massaging spray mode that may be desired by the user (Chung; paras. [0027] & [0045]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, D’Urso in view of Chung teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, and D’Urso further teaches the control circuit comprises a processor (23; para. [0026]) adapted for executing executable commands stored in non-volatile memory (para. [0026]), the processor when executing the executable commands providing control signals to the control circuit such that the distributor assembly provides the water flow selectively to a series of different subsets of the plurality of nozzles (as the spray pattern is changed, water flow will be selectively provided to a series of different subsets of spray holes 4/13; paras. [0007], [0022], & [0026]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, D’Urso teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 8, but D’Urso fails to teach pulsating the water flow.
Chung teaches a showerhead (Fig. 1) which can be controlled to provide various spray modes including a pulsing spray mode (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Urso to include pulsating the water flow, as taught by Chung, in order to provide a massaging spray mode that may be desired by the user (Chung; paras. [0027] & [0045]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, D’Urso in view of Chung teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9, and D’Urso further teaches the control circuit receiving user input data (from an app or menu of actions; see Fig. 9), the user input data being indicative of a user determined series of different subsets of the plurality of nozzles (para. [0007] and see Fig. 9, program sequence selected); the control circuit providing control signals to the distributor assembly in dependence upon the user input data (para. [0028]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, D’Urso teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, but D’Urso fails to teach the distributor assembly providing a pulsating water flow.
Chung teaches a showerhead (Fig. 1) which can be controlled to provide various spray modes (para. [0022]) including a pulsing spray mode, which is provided via the movement of protrusions 23 with spray holes 30 (see Fig. 6), which corresponds with the recited pulsator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Urso such that the distributor assembly comprises a pulsator for creating a pulsating water flow, and to perform the step of providing a pulsating water flow, as taught by Chung, in order to provide a massaging spray mode that may be desired by the user (Chung; paras. [0027] & [0045]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Urso in view of Chung, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lev 20120286070.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, D’Urso in view of Chung teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and D’Urso further teaches the control circuit must be operational in a shower environment in which it would likely get wet during use (see Fig. 1, example control panel 2 in the shower).
D’Urso in view of Chung fails to expressly teach the control circuit comprises a waterproof user interface.
Lev teaches a showerhead (Fig. 1) with circuitry contained within a waterproof housing (430).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Urso in view of Chung’s assembly such that the user interface of the control circuit comprises a waterproof housing, as taught by Lev, to protect the electronic components therein from water exposure (Lev; para. [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741