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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment to the Claims was filed on 9/2/2025.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 were canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/2/2025 (“Applicant’s Arguments”) with respect to the newly added claim limitation “the first speedbump is placed to engage the detent mechanism, providing a feedback point to encourage a user to limit flow rate” has been considered but is 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.
Applicant's Arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
248
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 use of speedbumps to create a soft stop”) 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).
The claim does not state the speedbump is concave or convex. Enoki discloses element 179 with areas of indents an areas of raised lip portions (between indents). When the ball is in the indent, it must ramp up to the raised lip portions. These areas slow down the speed of the valve’s actuating handle 138.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 7/8/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Drawings
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
The drawings illustrate section views, but fails to indicate some of the elements with proper section cross hatching. See MPEP 608.02. Section V, (h), (3) states “Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 4 recites “the valve body interior” while line 6 recites “the interior of the valve body”. “the valve body interior” should be amended to state “an interior of the valve body” to make the claimed element consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, and 5 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 1 line 7 recites “the mixed water outlet” while lines 2 and 4 recites “water outlet”. It is unclear if the mixed water outlet and the water outlet are the same element. For the purpose of this examination, it is assumed the mixed water outlet is the same element as the water outlet.
Claim 1 line 12 recites “to encourage a user to limit flow rate”. The phrase "to encourage" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banks et al. US 20220146002 (“Banks”).
Regarding Claim 1, Banks discloses a motion interrupting water saving faucet valve (ann. fig. 12) comprising: a hollow valve body (211) having a top (ann. fig. 12) with an aperture (ann. fig. 12) and a bottom (ann. fig. 12) with a water outlet (ann. fig. 12); a detent mechanism (220) installed within the valve body interior (ann. fig. 12) at some distance above the water outlet (see ann. fig. 12); an actuator mechanism (210) within the interior of the valve body (ann. fig. 12), having a proximal end (ann. fig. 12) that extends out of the aperture (ann. fig. 12) and a distal end (ann. fig. 12) that seals the mixed water outlet (ann. fig. 12); a first speedbump (212a) installed onto a surface of the actuator mechanism (210); and a linkage (ann. fig. 12, spline) that connects the proximal end of the actuator mechanism (ann. fig. 12) to a faucet handle (202, ann. fig. 12), such that the faucet handle (202) controls the movement of the actuator mechanism (202), wherein the first speedbump (212a) is placed to engage the detent mechanism (220), providing a feedback point (tactile feedback) to encourage a user to limit flow rate (para 0071-0073).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BANKS – ANNOTATED FIGURE 12
Regarding Claim 5, Banks discloses the actuator mechanism (210) further comprises a second speedbump (112a) that is located some distance below the first speedbump (112b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks et al. US 20220146002 (“Banks”) in view of Cruse US 3642249 (“Cruse”).
Regarding Claim 3, Banks discloses the claimed invention, except a detent mechanism is a raised lip.
Cruse teaches a detent mechanism (34, 36) is a raised lip (col. 1 line 63- col. 2 line 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
750
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CRUSE – FIGURES 2 and 3
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the ball biased detent mechanism, as disclosed by Banks, with a raised lip (o-ring lip), as taught by Cruse, for the purpose of creating a detent mechanism that is constructed of an o-ring elastomeric material which will compress radially inwardly in response to moderate pressure of a speed bump (42). An o-ring is a common item and easy to replace.
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 Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753