DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 2/2/2026 wherein claims 9-16 are canceled, claims 7-8 are withdrawn, and claims 1-6 are presented for examination.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figures 1-5) in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exists between the identified species. This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the previous office action, although the species are related as water outlet devices, they disclose different structure that would require a different field of search, including employing different search queries. See MPEP 808.02 C.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
Drawings
The drawings 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: “40” (Figures 1 and 3), “12” (Figures 2-3 and 7), “22” (Figures 3, 5, and 7), and “200” (Figure 4).
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 “first body comprises a first joint allowed for being rotationally and cooperatively connected to a wall” (Claim 2) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“is allowed to” (Claim 1, line 4; Claim 1, line 5; ) is believed to be in error for - - is configured to - -;
“is allowed for” (Claim 1, lines 6-7 and Claim 4, line 2) is believed to be in error for - - is configured for - -;
“are allowed to” (Claim 1, line 8) is believed to be in error for - - are configured to - -; and
“first joint allowed for” (Claim 2, line 2) is believed to be in error for - - first joint configured for - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first rotationally connecting damping mechanism” in line 4 of claim 2 and “second rotationally connecting damping mechanism” in lines 5-6 of claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “first rotationally connecting damping mechanism” and “second rotationally connecting damping mechanism” has been interpreted as a bolt and nut (see Paragraph 0008 and 0035 of Applicant’s specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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 recites the limitation "under a rotationally coupled of the support arm" in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by “a rotationally coupled of” and the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as reading - - the second body is rotationally coupled to the support arm - -
Claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reasons above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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 (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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (US 2023/0072136).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Cui teaches (Figures 1-10) a water outlet device (100), comprising:
a first body(10), wherein the first body (10) comprises a first panel (110) for water outlet (Paragraph 0019);
a second body (212), wherein the second body (212) comprises a second panel (22) for water outlet (Paragraph 0021);
a support arm (211), wherein a first end (at 211a) of the support arm (211) is allowed to be rotationally and cooperatively connected with (see Figures 6-10 and Paragraph 0022) the first body (10), and a second end (at 211b) of the support arm (211) is allowed to be rotationally and cooperatively connected with (see Figures 6-10 and Paragraph 0022) the second body (212);
the second body (212) is allowed for being moved relative to the first body (10) under a rotationally coupled of (at 11) the support arm (211), wherein the first panel (110) and the second panel (22) are allowed to converge (see Figure 9) or separate (see Figure 10).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhadanov (US 2020/0129995).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Zhadanov teaches (Figures 1-19) a water outlet device (10), comprising:
a first body (70, 76), wherein the first body (70, 76) comprises a first panel (76) for water outlet (see Figures 5-7);
a second body (72, 74), wherein the second body (72, 74) comprises a second panel (72) for water outlet (see Figures 5-7);
a support arm (50, 52), wherein a first end (54) of the support arm (50, 52) is allowed to be rotationally and cooperatively connected with (at 20, see Paragraph 0044) the first body (70 ,76), and a second end (56) of the support arm (50, 52) is allowed to be rotationally and cooperatively connected with (via 64, see Paragraph 0047 and Figure 19) the second body (72);
the second body (72) is allowed for being moved relative to the first body (76) under a rotationally coupled of (via 64 and 20) the support arm (50, 52), wherein the first panel (76) and the second panel (72) are allowed to converge or separate (see Figures 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhadanov teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov further teaches (Figures 1-19) wherein the first end (54) of the support arm (50, 52) is rotationally connected to (see Paragraph 0044) the first body (70, 76), and the second end (56) of the support arm (50, 52) is allowed for being flipped forward or backward (see Figures 6-7) with respect to the first body (70, 76); after the support arm (50, 52) has been flipped (from the Figure 7 position to the Figure 6 position), the first panel (76) is allowed for being added to the second panel (72) to form an outlet panel (76, 72) with an increased water outlet area (see Figure 6).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhadanov (US 2020/0129995) in view of Colpitts et al. (CA 2538810).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhadanov teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov further teaches (Figures 1-19) wherein the first body (70, 76) comprises a first joint (at 20; see Paragraph 0044) allowed for being rotationally and cooperatively connected to a wall (at the upstream end of 70; see Figures 6-7), and the second body (72) comprises a second joint (at 64) rotationally and cooperatively connected to (at 68, 69) the second end (at 56) of the support arm (50, 52). Zhadanov does not teach a first rotationally connecting damping mechanism is provided between the first end of the support arm and the first body, and a second rotationally connecting damping mechanism is further provided between the second end of the support arm and the second joint.
Colpitts teaches (Figures 1-20) a first rotationally connecting damping mechanism (30 or 55) that is provided between a first end (11) of a support arm (2) and a first body (12), and a second rotationally connecting damping mechanism (30 or 55) that is provided between a second end (10) of the support arm (2) and a second joint (at 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhadanov to have a first rotationally connecting damping mechanism be provided between the first end of the support arm and the first body, and a second rotationally connecting damping mechanism be provided between the second end of the support arm and the second joint, as taught by Colpitts, in order to require an application of an external rotational force that is sufficient in magnitude to exceed the frictional contact between the hub, friction ring, and tubular body so that undesired rotational movement of the hub and tubular body is prevented while still permitting a controlled rotational movement upon the application of a sufficient exterior force to either the hub and/or the tubular body (see Page 27, lines 9-18 of Colpitts).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhadanov (US 2020/0129995) in view of Colpitts et al. (CA 2538810) and Wu et al. (US 2023/0374762).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhadanov in view of Colpitts teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov in view of Colpitts does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein each of the first and second rotationally connecting damping mechanisms comprises a bolt and a nut matched with each other, the bolt and nut rotationally connects the support arm to the first body and the second joint, an outer circumference of the bolt is equipped with a friction ring, and a first end face of the friction ring is matingly connected to the support arm, and a second end face of the friction ring is cooperatively connected to the first body or the second joint.
Colpitts teaches (Figures 1-20) wherein each of the first and second rotationally connecting damping mechanisms (30 or 55) comprises a bolt assembly (25), the bolt assembly (25) rotationally connects the support arm (2) to the first body (12) and the second joint (at 3), an outer circumference of the bolt (25) is equipped with a friction ring (the locking members 30 can be replaced with a friction ring 55; see Page 27, lines 9-18 and Figure 4), and a first end face of the friction ring (55) is matingly connected to (see Figure 4 and Page 27, lines 9-18) the support arm (2), and a second end face of the friction ring (55) is cooperatively connected to (see Figure 4 and Page 27, lines 9-18) the first body (12) or the second joint (at 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhadanov in view of Colpitts to have each of the first and second rotationally connecting damping mechanisms comprises a bolt assembly, the bolt assembly rotationally connects the support arm to the first body and the second joint, an outer circumference of the bolt is equipped with a friction ring, and a first end face of the friction ring is matingly connected to the support arm, and a second end face of the friction ring is cooperatively connected to the first body or the second joint, as taught by Colpitts, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 2. Zhadanov in view of Colpitts does not teach, as discussed so far, that each bolt assembly has a nut matched with each bolt.
Wu teaches (Figures 1-12) a bolt assembly (56) having a bolt and a nut matched with each other (see Figure 3 and Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhadanov in view of Colpitts to have the bolt assemblies have a bolt and nut matched with each other, as taught by Wu, in order to allow for a pivotal connection between a sprayhead and a connecting base (Paragraph 0036 of Wu). It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the bolt assembly of Colpitts) for another (in this case, the bolt assembly of Wu) to obtain predictable results (in this case, connecting two pieces together) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhadanov (US 2020/0129995) in view of Colpitts et al. (CA 2538810), Wu et al. (US 2023/0374762), and Yan et al. (US 2023/0175240).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhadanov in view of Colpitts and Wu teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov further teaches (Figures 1-19) the second panel (72) is allowed for changing the water outlet angle (see Figures 5-7 and Paragraph 0046) by rotation in conjunction with the second joint (at 64). Zhadanov in view of Colpitts and Wu does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the first panel is allowed for changing a water outlet angle by rotation in conjunction with the first joint.
Yan teaches (Figures 1-5) a first panel (08) that is allowed for changing a water outlet angle (see Paragraph 0025 and Figures 1 and 4) by rotation in conjunction with a first joint (at 41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhadanov in view of Colpitts and Wu to have the first panel be allowed for changing a water outlet angle by rotation in conjunction with a first joint, as taught by Yan, in order to conveniently adjust the angle and height of the overhead shower head (Paragraph 0025 of Yan).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhadanov (US 2020/0129995) in view of Lin et al. (US 2018/0104707).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhadanov teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov does not teach wherein the first panel is provided with a vacant portion, the second panel is allowed to be placed within the vacant portion, and a contour of the second panel is allowed to be adapted to a contour of the vacant portion.
Lin teaches (Figures 1-13) a first panel (1) that is provided with a vacant portion (8), a second panel (2a) that is allowed to be placed within the vacant portion (8; see Figures 1-3), and a contour (see Figure 1) of the second panel (2a) is allowed to be adapted to a contour (see Figure 1) of the vacant portion (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhadanov to have the first panel be provided with a vacant portion, the second panel be allowed to be placed within the vacant portion, and a contour of the second panel be allowed to be adapted to a contour of the vacant portion, as taught by Lin, in order to improve the convenience and stability of using a combined shower, while reducing the space occupation of the combined shower (Paragraph 0007 of Lin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references teaching first and second panels of water outlet devices being added together to increase the water area and/or support arms having first and second rotationally coupled ends.
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