DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3,5,6,9-13,16 and 21-29 are pending and claims 4,7,8,14,15,and 17-20 have been cancelled.
This is in response to the amendment filed 1/29/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of previous pending claim(s) under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DeLa Hunt (US 3687340).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the current pending claim(s) 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.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to claim 16 in view of Anderson, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
It is considered that, Anderson, discloses; an inner assembly (26,28,58) having a faucet outlet (26 and at the end of 32) having a plurality of ribs (the ribs as shown above for claim 1) extending along a length (the outer length of 26 to the right end of the device) and extending radially from and around (considered as being,“in the area of”) the faucet outlet (as shown below the ribs are configured in this manner at end portion 32), wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to provide manual manipulation of the inner assembly to adjust a flow of water (the ribs are capable of being grasped by hand to move the faucet up and down within the outer assembly to adjust movement of flow of water by the position of the inner valve at 64).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds for rejection this action has been made Final.
Drawings
The objections will remain, in part, for the drawings and revert back to the originally filed drawings. The correction to figures 2 and 6 would have been overcome had all of the corrections below been made.
PNG
media_image2.png
611
1397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The drawings, as shown above, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 88.
The drawings in Figures 2 and 6 are depicted incorrectly with the depressor being accepted within the plug 108, where the plug 108 in Figure 4 does not show a cavity to receive the depressor portions 86 (the drawings submitted would have overcome the objections for this issue for figures 2 and 6).
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 limitations drawn to the building in claim 29 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.
Specification
The amendment to the specification of 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior 112 rejections.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a valve body” in line 2, is this another valve body or the previous body recited in claim 1?
Claim 10 further recites “the valve body” in lines 3-4 which is unclear which valve body this limitation is directed to?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 21- 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DeLa Hunt (US 3687340).
Regarding claim 1, DeLa Hunt discloses a wall faucet assembly comprising:
a faucet outlet (126,106,140) connected to an inner pipe 58; and
a valve coupling 134 connected to the inner pipe (see Fig. 3);
a valve body (66,74) connected to the valve coupling; and
the faucet outlet, the inner pipe, the valve coupling, and the valve body positioned within an outer pipe (48,46,50).
PNG
media_image3.png
783
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, DeLa Hunt discloses the faucet outlet having a plurality of ribs (110,114; the ribs shown in amended figure 3 above) extending along a length (the vertical length along 106 and 140 where 110 and 114 are located) of the faucet outlet and extending radially outward from and around a circumference (the outer circumference between 110 and 140) of the faucet outlet.
Regarding claim 9, DeLa Hunt discloses the valve body (66,74, see Fig. 3,5) having a sidewall (at 74) positioned between a partially open end wall (the wall at 62) and an open-end wall (the end at 48), and a plug (the upper head at 80 of 163), a spring (78), and a ring (the round part of 79 abutting spring 78) positioned within the valve body, wherein the spring is positioned between the plug and the ring, and the plug and the ring are positioned within the partially open end wall.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, based on the 112 rejection above, DeLa Hunt discloses the valve body is threadably connected to a valve body (44,41 I connected to 66,74), and that the valve coupling 134 has an internal rim (the internal rim of 134 at 164nearest numeral 151 in Fig. 5) that separates a connection of the valve coupling to the inner pipe and the valve coupling to the valve body (as the two halves are disconnected the rim separates a connection of the valve coupling to the inner pipe and the valve coupling to the valve body, as best understood).
Regarding claim 16, DeLa Hunt discloses a wall faucet assembly (22,100,25) comprising: an outer assembly (25) having an outer pipe (50,48,see Fig. 2); and an inner assembly (100, see Fig. 2) having a faucet outlet (the outlet being 126) having a plurality of ribs (110,114, the ribs protruding from 106) extending along a length (the vertical length along 106 and 140 where 110 and 114 are located) of the faucet outlet and extending radially outward from and around a circumference (the outer circumference between 110 and 140) of the faucet outlet, wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to provide manual manipulation of the inner assembly to adjust a flow of water (the ribs are capable and configured of being grasped by hand to move the faucet valve within 25 during the connection to adjust the flow of water as is old and well known).
Regarding claim 21, DeLa Hunt discloses a wall mount (26,28,30) having a ring (28) that protrudes from an exterior (30) of a mount plate (wall of 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
827
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, DeLa Hunt discloses a wall mount (26,28,30) having an opening 168 to receive the outer pipe (48,46,50) , wherein the wall mount has an internal angle (90 degrees with respect to the top of the surface that 26 is mounted flush with) such that the opening angles downwardly.
Regarding claim 23, DeLa Hunt discloses the valve coupling 134 threadably connected (via 144 with 64,60, col. 7, lns. 48-55) to the valve body 66,74.
Regarding claim 24, DeLa Hunt discloses the faucet outlet 126 connected to the inner pipe 58 by at least one set screw (the threaded connection of 124 to 106).
Regarding claim 25, DeLa Hunt discloses a wall mount (26,28,30) having an opening 168 to receive the outer pipe, wherein the wall mount has an internal angle (90 degrees with respect to the top of the surface that 26 is mounted flush with) such that the opening angles downwardly.
Regarding claim 26, DeLa Hunt discloses a valve coupling 134 threadably connected (via 144 with 64,60, col. 7, lns. 48-55) to a valve body 66.
Regarding claim 28, DeLa Hunt discloses the inner assembly having a valve coupling 134 threadably connected (via 144 with 64,60, col. 7, lns. 48-55) to a valve body 66, wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to provide manual rotational manipulation of the valve coupling in relation to the valve body (the ribs are capable and configured of being grasped by hand to move the faucet valve within 25 during the connection in relation to the valve body).
Claim(s) 16 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Anderson (US 3672392).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses a wall faucet assembly comprising: an outer assembly (12,14) having an outer pipe (58); and
an inner assembly (26,28,58) having a faucet outlet (26 and at the end of 32) having a plurality of ribs (the ribs as shown above for claim 1) extending along a length (the outer length of 26 to the right end of the device) and extending radially from and around (considered as being,“in the area of”) the faucet outlet (as shown below the ribs are configured in this manner at end portion 32), wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to provide manual manipulation of the inner assembly to adjust a flow of water (the ribs are capable of being grasped by hand to move the faucet up and down within the outer assembly to adjust movement of flow of water by the position of the inner valve at 64).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Anderson discloses a valve coupling 78 threadably connected to a valve body 84.
Regarding claim 27, Anderson discloses the faucet outlet connected to an inner pipe 38 by (being considered as “near” in the broadest reasonable interpretation) at least one set screw 56.
Regarding claim 28, Anderson discloses the inner assembly having a valve coupling (at 34 thread connection) threadably connected to a valve body 84, wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to provide manual rotational manipulation of the valve coupling in relation to the valve body.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLa Hunt ‘340 in view of Gardner (US 4874189).
Regarding claim 11, DeLa Hunt disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, including a wall mount (26), although is silent to having the wall mount has at least one aperture to receive a set screw to affix the outer pipe to the wall mount.
Gardner discloses a wall mount (11,32) having at least one apertures (the openings within 46 that accept screws 33,34) to receive a set screw (33,34) to affix the outer pipe to the wall mount.
PNG
media_image5.png
1250
971
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a wall mount as taught by Gardner for the wall mount connection of DeLa Hunt, since it has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLa Hunt ‘340 in view of Bozung (US 1406336).
Regarding claim 12-13, DeLa Hunt disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that to having, a pipe cap that is sized and shaped to be received on the outer pipe, the outer pipe has a pair of roll pins that are received in a pair of slots in the pipe cap, and the pair of slots have an L-shape such that the pair of roll pins are received in a vertical section of the pair of slots wherein when the pipe cap is rotated.
Bozung discloses a pipe cap (14) that is sized and shaped to be received on the outer pipe (8), the outer pipe has a pair of roll pins (13, see Fig. 2,5) that are received in a pair of slots (15) in the pipe cap, and the pair of slots have an L-shape (as shown in Fig. 1,2) such that the pair of roll pins are received in a vertical section of the pair of slots wherein when the pipe cap is rotated.
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a cap with pins as taught by Bozung onto the device of DeLa Hunt to have a pipe cap that is sized and shaped to be received on the outer pipe, the outer pipe has a pair of roll pins that are received in a pair of slots in the pipe cap, and the pair of slots have an L-shape such that the pair of roll pins are received in a vertical section of the pair of slots wherein when the pipe cap is rotated, in order to protect the valve against contact with an object to cause an accidental actuation of the valve, prevention from dust/contaminants, and where the cap can be quickly attached and detached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 29 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious; “a plurality of elongated ribs extending from and radially around the faucet outlet; a valve coupling connected to the inner pipe at an opposite end of the inner pipe; a valve body threadably and operatively connected to the valve coupling; the faucet outlet, the inner pipe, the valve coupling, and the valve body positioned within an outer pipe; a wall mount received around the outer pipe and connected to the outer pipe with at least one second set screw; and the wall mount having an opening with an internal angle that angles downwardly from an interior end to an exterior end”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights