DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 3/10/2026 wherein claims 8- 17 and 20 are withdrawn and claims 1-7 and 18-19 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the first gap has a width that remains the same between when the showerhead is in use and when the showerhead is not in use”. Applicant states “the newly added limitations do not present new matter. See, e.g., Applicant’s Specification, at Figs. 1 and 3” (see Remarks filed 3/10/2026). However, it is noted that no such support for the first gap having a width remaining the same when the showerhead is operated and when the showerhead is not in use cannot be found in the specification. On the contrary, Applicant’s specification discusses the nozzles 205 being formed at least in part from a flexible material, e.g., a flexible polymeric material (see Paragraph 0054, 0079, 0108, and 0122). Therefore, the gap which is formed at least in part by the nozzles would not appear to have the same width during all operating modes of the showerhead. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2-7 and 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first gap has a maximum width of at least 1 mm and/or up to 6 mm”. It is noted that the first gap would necessarily include a maximum width of at least one of less than 6 mm or greater than 1 mm. Therefore, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first gap has a maximum length of at least 5 mm and/or up to 30 mm”. It is noted that the first gap would necessarily include a maximum length of at least one of less than 6 mm or greater than 1 mm. Therefore, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a ratio of a maximum width of the first gap to a maximum length of the first gap is at least 1:2 and/or up to 1:15”. It is noted that the ratio of a maximum width of the first gap to a maximum length of the first gap would necessarily include a ratio that is at least one of less than 1:15 or greater than 1:2. Therefore, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites “wherein one or more of the nozzle bodies comprise a portion of uniform cross-section and/or wherein one or more of the nozzle bodies comprise a portion of non-uniform cross-section”. It is noted that the nozzle bodies will necessarily include a portion that is either uniform or non-uniform in cross-section. Therefore, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (CN 115283156 A – see PTO-892 mailed 12/11/2025).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Xie teaches (Figures 1-4) a showerhead (see title and Figure 3) comprising:
a faceplate (11) with one or more apertures (10) therein (see Figures 3-4);
a chamber (between 42 and 11b) disposed within the showerhead (see Figures 2-3), the chamber (between 42 and 11b) in fluid communication, in use, with a water supply (via 2; see Figure 3);
a nozzle (at 6) disposed at least partially in (see Figures 3-4) each aperture (10), one or more of the nozzles (6) comprising a nozzle body (6, 13; see Figure 4) having a nozzle inlet (at 6) at a first end (the top end of 13 in Figure 4) and a nozzle outlet (at the downstream end of 13) at a second end (the bottom end of 13 in Figure 4), wherein the nozzle inlet (at 6) is inboard of (see Figures 3-4) the faceplate (11);
one or more enclosure portions (annotated below) protruding into the chamber (between 42 and 11b; see Figures 3-4) from a back plate (42), wherein a portion of the nozzle body (at the upstream end of 13) including the nozzle inlet (at 6) is surrounded at least partially by a respective enclosure portion (annotated below) of the one or more enclosure portions (see Figures 3-4 and annotation below), and
a first gap (at 5) between the nozzle body (6, 13) and the respective enclosure portion (annotated below) such that, in use, water flows from the chamber (between 42 and 11b) through the first gap (at 5, see Figures 3-4) and into the nozzle inlet (at 6);
wherein the first gap (5) has a width that remains the same between when the showerhead is in use and when the showerhead is not in use (due to the elastic deformation properties of the cover part 41 and column body 6 being optional, i.e., the cover part and the column body which form the gap can be made of rigid materials; see Paragraph 0010);
wherein the enclosure portion (annotated below) and the nozzle body (6, 13) together provide a tortuous, relatively narrow flow path (see the flow arrows in Figure 4) from the chamber (between 42 and 11b) through the first gap (a 5) to the nozzle inlet (at 6) to reduce or prevent dripping water from the showerhead (see Figure 4) occurring at any time when the showerhead is not in use (see Figures 3-4 and Paragraphs 0004-0005).
It is noted that the term “relatively narrow” is interpreted as being “a local constriction, i.e. a reduction in cross-sectional area, in a flow path that would not otherwise be present compared with a situation in which the enclosure portion(s) and/or the projection portion(s) and the nozzle body(ies) were not present” in accordance with Paragraph 0140 of Applicant’s specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein surface tension of water retained in the first gap (5) when the showerhead is not in use is sufficient to limit or prevent dripping of water from occurring at any time when the showerhead is not in use (due to the structure of the nozzle and the enclosure shown in Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the first gap (at 5) has a maximum width of less than 6mm (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0009). It is further noted that Xie’s gap 5 would unavoidably be at least one of either less than 6mm or greater than 1mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the first gap (at 5) has a maximum length of at least 5mm and/or up to 30mm (due to the length of the gap 5 being necessarily at least one of less than 30mm or greater than 5mm).
Regarding Claim 6, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie appears to schematically show (Figures 1-4) a ratio of a maximum width of the first gap to a maximum length of the first gap is at least 1:2 (see Figure 4). It is further noted that Xie’s ratio of maximum width of the first gap to a maximum length of the first gap would unavoidably be either one of less than 1:15 or greater than 1:2).
Regarding Claim 18, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein one or more of the nozzle bodies (6,1 3) comprise a portion of non-uniform cross-section (due to the converging shape of the walls; see Figures 3-4). It is noted that Xie’s nozzle bodies will necessarily include at least one of a portion of uniform cross-section or a portion of non-uniform cross-section.
Regarding Claim 19, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie further teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein one or more of the nozzles (at 13) or one or more of the nozzle body portions (6) is/are fixed in place by a nozzle fixing plate (annotated above).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 115283156) in view of Mock et al. (US 2022/0040713).
Regarding Claim 3, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a surface of the nozzle body and/or a surface of the respective enclosure portion bounding the first gap is textured and/or roughened.
Mock teaches (Figures 1-16) a surface of a nozzle body includes a roughness that corresponds to ISO Roughness Grade N6 (see Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to have the surface of the nozzle body and/or a surface of the enclosure portion bounding the first gap to be textured and/or roughened, as taught by Mock, in order to improve the flow of the liquid through the nozzles (Paragraph 0098-0099 of Mock).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 115283156)
Regarding Claim 7, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie appears to schematically show in Figure 4, but does not explicitly state, wherein the respective enclosure portion (annotated above) protrudes into the chamber (between 42 and 11b) from the back plate (42) by a distance that is at least 40% of a local height (see Figures 3-4) of the chamber (between 42 and 11b).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Xie’s enclosure portion to protrude into the chamber from the back plate by a distance that is at least 40% of a local height of the chamber, since applicant has not disclosed that the enclosure portion protruding into the chamber from the back plate by a distance greater than 40% of a local height of the chamber solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the protrusion distance of the enclosure portion as taught by Xie.
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 18-19 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, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741