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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (2019/0283048), Nordstrom (2011/0101132), Hamilton (1,968,391) and Roderick (1,120,975)
Regarding claim 1, Rong shows a spray rod (180), comprising: a water outlet device (the annular upper part), a spray rod body (182) and a water diversion valve (270) where the water outlet device comprises: a core (252),comprising a mixing chamber (inside 252), at least one first water inlet (246, 258), at least one second water inlet (254), and a water outlet (260), wherein the water outlet connects with the mixing chamber (fig 6); wherein a tangential direction of the mixing chamber, a radial direction of the mixing chamber, and an axial direction of the mixing chamber are defined (figure 6, the mixing chamber has all those directions); the at least one first water inlet are disposed in the mixing chamber along the tangential direction (fig 6) so that a water flow entering the mixing chamber from the at least one first water inlet is capable of forming a vortex; and the at least one second water inlets are disposed in the mixing chamber along the axial direction (fig 6) so that a water flow entering the mixing chamber from the at least one second water inlet is capable of forming a stable water flow; and the water outlet is capable of spraying water flows in different states by adjusting a water intake ratio of the at least one first water inlet and the at least one second water inlet (fig 7a-7c).
but fails to show wherein an aperture of the water outlet is between 1 mm and 2 mm; or a flow area of the water outlet is between 0.8 mm2 and 3 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rong to so that the an aperture of the water outlet is between 1 mm and 2 mm; or a flow area of the water outlet is between 0.8 mm2 and 3 mm2, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Rong would not operate differently with the aperture of the water outlet being between 1 mm and 2 mm; or a flow area of the water outlet being between 0.8 mm2 and 3 mm2. , since the nozzle of Rong and the claimed nozzle are identical in every other way and changing the proportion of the proximal end will not affect the function of the nozzle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Additionally, Nordstrom teaches a water outlet that is .05 to 2mm [0077]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rong to so that an aperture of the water outlet is between 1 mm and 2 mm, as taught by Nordstrom, in order to provide the desired fluid flow rate.
The above combination still fails to teach:
that the water diversion valve comprises: a valve seat comprising a first water diversion hole and a second water diversion hole, wherein the first water diversion hole connects with the at least one first water inlets, and the second water diversion hole connects with the at least one second water inlets; and a moving member movably connected to the valve seat and comprising a third water diversion hole, wherein the third water diversion hole is capable of connecting with a water supply pipe; wherein when the moving member moves relative to the valve seat, the third water diversion hole selectively corresponds to at least one of: the first water diversion hole, or the second water diversion hole, wherein the valve seat and the moving member are both disc-shaped and rotatably stacked on each other, the first water diversion hole and the second water diversion hole extend along a circumferential direction of the valve seat and are arranged at intervals ; and the third water diversion hole extends along a circumferential direction of the moving member.
Hamilton shows a diversion valve that includes a valve seat (18) comprising a first water diversion hole (inlet to one of 19) and a second water diversion hole (inlet to the other 19), wherein the first water diversion hole connects with the at least one first water inlet (19), and the second water diversion hole connects with the at least one second water inlet (the other 19); and a moving member (20) movably connected to the valve seat and comprising a third water diversion hole (21), wherein the third water diversion hole is capable of connecting with a water supply pipe (5); wherein when the moving member moves relative to the valve seat, the third water diversion hole selectively corresponds to at least one of: the first water diversion hole, or the second water diversion hole (pane 1, lines 85-90). The valve seat and the moving member are both disc-shaped and rotatably stacked on each other (Hamilton), the first water diversion hole and the second water diversion hole extend along a circumferential direction of the valve seat and are arranged at intervals (Hamilton); and the third water diversion hole extends along a circumferential direction of the moving member (Hamilton).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the diversion valve of Hamilton in place of the diversion valve of Rong, in order to be able to easily connect each the first and second inlets to the fluid supply by simply rotating one part relative to another.
But fails to disclose the first water diversion hole, the second water diversion hole, and the third water diversion hole are all waist-shaped holes.
Roderick teaches waste shaped holes in a rotary diversion valve (fig 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the holes in the diversion valve waist shaped, in order to allow more fluid to flow through them per unit to time compared to round holes of the same diameter as the witch of the waist shaped holes.
Regarding claim 2, wherein a centerline of the water outlet coincides with an axis of the mixing chamber (fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, wherein an inner wall surface of the mixing chamber is an arc-shaped curved surface, and a shape of the arc-shaped curved surface is a truncated cone, a cone, an ellipsoid, or a cylinder (fig 6 shows a cylinder shaped mixing chamber).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (2019/0283048) as modified by Nordstrom (2011/0101132), Hamilton (1,968,391) and Roderick (1,120,975) above, further in view of Tilton et al. (2007/0018017)
Regarding claim 3, Rong as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the mixing chamber closer to the water outlet gradually decreases.
However, Tilton et al. teaches a very similar device where a cross-sectional area of the mixing chamber closer to the water outlet gradually decreases (165, fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the cross section of the mixing chamber of Rong as modified above gradually decrease towards the outlet, in order to increase flow velocity towards the outlet of the mixing chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However regarding the applicants arguments over Hamilton not remitting two outlets to be open simultaneously, the examiner notes that this limitation is not in the claims.
Also, the arguments about he regulation of Roderick are not in the claims.
Lastly, the arguments about the sealing mechanism being incomputable, the examiner notes that the examiner is only using Roderick to teach the shapes of the holes, no sealing mechanisms are being modified by Roderick.
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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 8/15/2026
Prosecution Insights