DETAILED ACTION
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 8-9 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 8 puts forth the limitation “wherein each of the water inlet end and the water outlet end of the inner container is provided with the convex lip.” It is unclear how the convex lip is located on the water inlet end and water outlet end. Does Applicant intend to put forth each end including a convex lip? The same rejection applies to claim 9. Examiner recommends putting forth the inlet end including an additional convex lip.
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) 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nagata (EP 1672129) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over modified Nagata.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Nagata discloses an aerator, comprising
a tubular shell (401) and an inner container (54C, 402);
an inner wall of the tubular shell (401) being provided with through slots (404) disposed to pass through the tubular shell along an axial direction of the inner wall (Figure 21), the through slots being arranged at intervals (the slots are arranged at intervals between the protruding portions of the serration); and
an outer wall (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) of the inner container being integrally formed with limiting ribs (405) and formed with a convex lip (402), the limiting ribs being distributed along an axial direction of the inner container (Figure 21) and being matched with the through slots (Paragraph 123), and the convex lip being located on a water outlet end of the inner container (Figure 20) and the convex lip abutting against end surfaces of the tubular shell along an axial direction of the tubular shell (Figure 20, the convex lip abuts against threads of the tubular shell); and
each of the limiting ribs provided with at least two first guide slopes symmetrically disposed along the axial direction of the inner container, and the first guide slopes being gradually protruded from a water inlet end to the water outlet end of the inner container (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The upper portion of the protrusions include a triangular shape that protrudes from the inlet end toward the outlet end. The triangular shape includes two edges (first guide slopes) that meet at a point); the inner container comprising a water inlet body (420) and a water outlet body (32, 60) coaxial with the water inlet body (Figure 20), the water inlet body being detachably connected to the water outlet body (The water inlet body is threaded to the remaining components), but fails to disclose the tubular shell being made of a metal material or the convex lip being integrally formed with the outer wall.
Parkison discloses a device that includes a tubular shell made of a metal material (Column 7, lines 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagata with the disclosures of Parkison, providing the tubular shell being made of a metal material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the convex lip with the outer wall since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Should it be found that the first and/or second guide slopes do not protrude downstream and/or upstream, Figure 8C discloses a limiting rib (86) that includes an upper and lower surface that is filleted to protrude downstream and upstream respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagata to include the upper and lower edges of the protrusions being filleted, thereby providing the guide slopes to protrude in a downstream and upstream direction, as claimed, as the shapes were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including cooperation between the inner container and shell, to ensure proper security of the spray head.
Regarding claim 2, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein the limiting ribs are in transition or interference fit with the through slots (transition fit).
Regarding claim 4 Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein each of the limiting ribs is provided with at least two second guide slopes symmetrically disposed along the axial direction of the inner container, the second guide slopes and the first guide slopes are symmetrically disposed along a radial direction of the inner container, and the second guide slopes are gradually protruded from the water outlet end to the water inlet end of the inner container (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, the lower portion of the protrusions include a triangular shape that protrudes from the outlet end toward the inlet end. The triangular shape includes two edges (second guide slopes) that meet at a point).
Should it be found that the first and/or second guide slopes do not protrude downstream and/or upstream, Figure 8C discloses a limiting rib (86) that includes an upper and lower surface that is filleted to protrude downstream and upstream respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagata to include the upper and lower edges of the protrusions being filleted, thereby providing the guide slopes to protrude in a downstream and upstream direction, as claimed, as the shapes were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including cooperation between the inner container and shell, to ensure proper security of the spray head.
Regarding claim 5, Nagata alone, or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 4, wherein the first guide slopes are in smooth transition connection with the second guide slopes by connecting surfaces (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), and the connecting surfaces are pressed against circumferential inner walls of the through slots (Figure 20).
Regarding claim 6, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein the convex lip (402) is an annular convex lip (Figure 21).
Regarding claim 7, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein the convex lip comprises at least two limiting bodies uniformly distributed on a circumferential outer wall of the inner container (Figure 21, The convex lip includes threads 408 on an outer surface of the lip; As modified, the threads would be on an outer surface of the container through the integral configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein each of the water inlet end and the water outlet end of the inner container is provided with the convex lip (As best understood, the inlet end also includes a convex lip 401).
Regarding claim 9, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 1, wherein an outer wall of each of the water inlet body and the water outlet body is provided with the convex lip (As best under stood, the inlet end also includes a convex lip 401).
Regarding claim 10, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 8, wherein a gap is formed between at least one of the convex lips and one of the end surfaces in the axial direction of the tubular shell (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Nagata alone or as modified discloses the aerator according to claim 9, wherein a gap is formed between at least one of the convex lips and one of the end surfaces in the axial direction of the tubular shell (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
778
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the convex lip have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the slopes in the width direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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
Prosecution Insights