DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 5/25/2026 wherein claims 2-3, 5, and 9-16 are canceled, claims 7-8 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4, and 6 are presented for examination.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 .
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, 4, and 6 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 second body is configured for being moved relative to the first body under the second body is rotationally coupled to the support arm” in lines 7-9 of claim 1. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not describe or illustrate a second body being moved under itself. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected for the same reasons above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4, and 6 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261,270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings, in re Vaeck. 947, F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and/or use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing some or all of the following non-exhaustive list of factual considerations: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737.
Applicant claims “the second body is configured for being moved relative to the first body under the second body is rotationally coupled to the support arm” (Claim 1, lines 7-9). Although the specification states “the second body being capable of being moved relative to the first body relative to the first body under the rotationally coupled of the support arm” in Paragraph 0035, the specification does not describe nor do the drawings show any details of any structural feature which would allow for the second body to be moved under itself.
Thus, the specification provides no direction or working examples (factual considerations F and G, above) with respect to how to achieve the relative movement of the second body required by the claims. It is further noticed that the environment is one of harsh fluidic conditions and large vibrational and loads, and therefore, is largely unpredictable (factual consideration E, above). Therefore, based upon the disclosure of Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner therefore concludes that the specification does not enable, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, how to make or use the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected for the same reasons above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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 "the second body is configured for being moved relative to the first body under the second body is rotationally coupled to the support arm” in lines 7-9. The meaning of this statement is illogical because a body cannot be moved under itself. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1 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 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 configured 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 configured to be rotationally and cooperatively connected with (via 64, see Paragraph 0047 and Figure 19) the second body (72);
the second body (72) is configured for being moved relative to the first body (76), wherein the second body (72) is rotationally coupled to (see Paragraph 0047) 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);
wherein the first body (70, 76) comprises a first joint (at 20; see Paragraph 0044) configured 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); and
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).
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, or 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) 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). Colpitts also 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 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 and 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, 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). 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 Colpitts et al. (CA 2538810), Wu et al. (US 2023/0374762), and Lin et al. (US 2018/0104707).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhadanov in view of Colpitts and Wu teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zhadanov in view of Colpitts and Wu 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 in view of Colpitts and Wu 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 explicitly defines that “the first panel and the second panel are configured to converge to form a water discharge panel with an increased water discharge area, or separate for independent use” (see Page 14 of applicant’s remarks). In response, this is not “explicitly defined” or recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that claim 1 does recite “wherein the first panel and the second panel are configured to converge or separate”. Zhadanov teaches, as discussed in the body of the rejection above, that the first panel (76) and the second panel (72) are allowed to converge or separate (see Figures 6 and 7).
Applicant additionally argues that Colpitts does not teach the creation of a “combined dual-panel water outlet terminal” and Wu does not teach “mergeable dual panels”. As discussed above, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nowhere in the claims is “combined dual-panel water outlet terminal” or “mergeable dual panels” recited. Furthermore, Colpitts is not being relied upon for teaching a combined dual-panel water outlet terminal. Instead Colpitts is relied upon for teaching 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) and 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). Wu is relied upon for teaching a bolt assembly (56) having a bolt and a nut matched with each other (see Figure 3 and Paragraph 0036). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the two panels being able to converge and separate are taught by Zhadanov, as discussed above.
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
Prosecution Insights