DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 6/30/2026 wherein claim 19 is canceled, claims 8- 17 and 20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-7 and 18 are presented for examination.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 115283156) in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0255552).
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 respective 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);
wherein one or more of the nozzles (at 13) or one or more of the nozzle body portions (6) is fixed in place by a nozzle fixing plate (annotated below) disposed adjacent an inner surface (a surface facing the nozzle fixing plate; see annotation below) of the faceplate (11) and between the faceplate (11) and the chamber (between 42 and 11b; see Figures 3-4), wherein the chamber (between 42 and 11b; see Figures 3-4) is disposed between the nozzle fixing plate (annotated below) and the back plate (42).
Xie does not teach a portion of the nozzle body extending from the first end toward the second end has a uniform cross-section.
Huang teaches (Figures 1-7) a portion (the portion of 222) of the nozzle body (222, 221) extending from the first end toward the second end has a uniform cross-section (see Figures 3-6).
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 a portion of the nozzle body extending from the first end toward the second end has a uniform cross-section, as taught by Huang, in order to block residual water above the water outflow surface cover from flowing out of the water outflow port after the water is cut off (see Paragraph 0037 of Huang). It is further noted that it has been held the variations in shape were a matter of choice and only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ (CCPA 1966). In addition, applicant has not disclosed that a uniform cross-section from the first end toward the second end solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the cross-section as taught by Xie or the cross-section as taught by Huang.
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 in view of Huang 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 in view of Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie in view of Huang does not teach wherein the first gap has a maximum width of at least 1mm and up to 6mm.
Xie teaches (Paragraph 0008) that the size of the water inlet gap is configured to restrict the flow of water in the water inlet space from the water inlet gap to the corresponding outlet channel by the surface tension of the water when the water inlet is not connected to a water source. Therefore, the size of the first gap is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the inlet gap should be sized such that the flow of water is restricted by the surface tension of the water. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the size of the water inlet gap can be configured to restrict the flow of water, were disclosed in the prior art by Xie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the size of the water inlet gap as taught by Xie in order to restrict the flow of water by the surface tension of water. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 5, Xie in view of Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the first gap has a maximum length of at least 5mm and up to 30mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Xie in view of Huang to have the first gap have a maximum length between 5mm and 30mm, since applicant has not disclosed that the first gap having a maximum length of at least 5mm and up to 30mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the lengths illustrated in Xie and Huang.
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).
Regarding Claim 6, Xie in view of Huang 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 and up to 1:15 (see Figure 4).
It is further noted that applicant has not disclosed that using a ratio of a maximum width of the first gap to a maximum length of the first gap is at least 1:2 and up to 1:15 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the ratio of the width of the first gap to the length of the first gap as illustrated by Xie and Huang.
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).
Regarding Claim 7, Xie in view of Huang 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).
Regarding Claim 18, Xie in view of Huang 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 at the outlet of the nozzle; see Figures 3-4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 115283156) in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0255552) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mock et al. (US 2022/0040713).
Regarding Claim 3, Xie in view of Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Xie in view of Huang 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 in view of Huang 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that Lee (KR 20160035311 A; see PTO-892) also teaches a portion of a nozzle body extending from a first end toward a second end having a uniform cross-section.
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
Prosecution Insights