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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the nozzle body is rotatably attached to the rotating base” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “wherein the nozzle body is rotatably attached to the rotating base” however this limitation is confusing. Firstly, this language does not appear in applicant’s specification and as such no further explanation for the language is present. As such, it is entirely unclear how the component titled “rotating base” is rotatably attached to the component titled “nozzle body” applicant’s figures show the exact opposite. The rotating base is element 106 in applicant’s figures while the nozzle body is element 101. As seen in applicant’s figures the entire length of element 106 is inserted into element 101 and specifically in figure 2 where it’s demonstrated that the component titled “nozzle base” is shown to be rotatably attached through shaft 108A and tabs 101C, the rotating base, again element 106, which can also be clearly seen in figure 4 fully inserted into nozzle body 101, does not in any way appear to be rotatably attached to the nozzle body 101. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be understood and the claim is considered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christian (FR 2666777 A1).
Re claim 1, Christian shows a foldable nozzle assembly (Figs. 1-3), comprising a nozzle body (18/26), wherein a nozzle base (7/12) is mounted on the nozzle body, and a limiting component (25/28) is installed between the nozzle base and the nozzle body; a rotational component (19) on the nozzle base is configured to pivotally attach a rotating base (18), which in turn supports a nozzle (20); the nozzle (20) is foldable onto the nozzle base (7/12) using the limiting component (25/28) and the rotational component (19).
Re claim 5, Christian shows a spring (14) is installed on the nozzle to facilitate nozzle reset.
Re claim 7, Christian shows the nozzle body (18/26) is rotatably attached to the rotating base (18, Christian shows these two components to be “rotatably attached” in the same way applicants demonstrate these two components to be “rotatably attached”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian (FR 2666777 A1).
Re claim 2, Christian shows the limiting component comprises a limiting rib (25) and a matching limiting orifice (space 25 is inserted into), with the limiting rib located on the nozzle body (18/26) and the limiting orifice positioned on the nozzle base (7/12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include more than one rib and more than one matching orifice, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the plural elements.
Re claim 3, Christian shows the rotation component comprises a rotating shaft (19) and a connecting tab (through 18 and 12) matched to the rotating shaft; the rotating shaft is positioned on the nozzle base (7/12), and the connecting tab is positioned on the nozzle body (18/26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include more than tab, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the plural elements.
Re claim 4, Christian shows the nozzle comprises a spray hole (22) and a nozzle rear cover (26), with the spray hole arranged opposite the nozzle rear cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include more than spray hole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the plural elements.
Re claim 6, Christian shows the nozzle body is equipped with a guiding hole (29) for nozzle movement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include more than guiding hole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the plural elements.
Re claim 8, Christian discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a sealing ring positioned at the water outlet of the nozzle base, and the rotating base is sealingly connected to the nozzle base through the sealing ring.
However, Christian does teach multiple sealing rings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a sealing ring at the water outlet of the nozzle base, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Further, this ensures a tight closure between the nozzle base and rotating base (col. 4, lines 9-12).
Re claim 9, Christian discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a sealing ring is located at the water outlet of the rotating base, and the nozzle is sealingly connected to the rotating base through the sealing ring.
However, Christian does teach multiple sealing rings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a sealing ring at the water outlet of the rotating base, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Further, this ensures a tight closure between the rotating base and nozzle (col. 4, lines 9-12).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US Pub No 2014/0101838 A1) in view of Christian (FR 2666777 A1).
Re claim 10, Gupta et al. show a bidet (Fig. 1), comprising a bidet body (100), wherein a nozzle assembly (101) is mounted on the bidet body.
Gupta et al. does not teach any one of the foldable nozzle assemblies according to claim 1 and the nozzle assembly can be folded onto the bidet body.
However, Christian shows a foldable nozzle assembly according to claim 1 (see above) and the nozzle assembly can be folded onto the body (Fig. 1, 3).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle assembly in Gupta) for another (nozzle assembly as shown in Christian) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the nozzle assembly shown in Christian would have yielded predictable results, namely, a nozzle assembly in Gupta et al. to wash the body parts of a user (paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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 (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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752