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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the nozzle core" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 should be amended to depend from claim 7 to correct this.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 12,403,068 (hereinafter Hillyard) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0033725 (hereinafter Holtsnider).
Regarding claim 1, Hillyard discloses a bathtub massage nozzle (10), comprising a nozzle body (existing prior art, fig. 10), a nozzle core seat (12) and a nozzle surface cover (16, 18, 24, 28, 32, 34, 20), wherein the nozzle body comprises a water inlet end (note annotated fig. below) and an opposite water spraying end (note annotated fig. below), the water inlet end is provided with a water inlet and an air inlet (note annotated fig. below), and the air inlet is closer to the water spraying end than the water inlet (note annotated fig. below), and the water spraying end is formed with an accommodating cavity extending to the water inlet (note annotated fig. below); the nozzle core seat is arranged in the accommodating cavity (fig. 11), the nozzle core seat (12) is provided with a core seat water inlet hole and adecorative ring (18, 24, 28, 32, 34, 20) arranged at an end face of the nozzle surface cover body, and a surface of the decorative ring away from the nozzle surface cover body is provided with decorative patterns (fig. 2).
Hillyard shows a single air inlet hole on the nozzle core seat and thus fails to show a plurality. Attention is turned to Holtsnider which shows including a plurality of air inlet holes (36) on a nozzle core seat for the purpose of entraining air through the nozzle body (par. 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a plurality of air inlet holes on the nozzle core seat of Hillyard as evidenced by the teachings mentioned above.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein Hillyard shows the decorative ring is an over-molded decorative ring which is plastic-injected at the end face of the nozzle surface cover body (col. 5, ln. 30-37; col. 6, ln. 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein Hillyard shows the decorative ring is detachable (col. 4, ln. 25-35), the nozzle surface cover body is provided with an installation slot (40A, 40B, 40C, 40D, 40E, 40F), and the decorative ring is provided with an installation clasp (42A, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 42F) adapted to the installation slot.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, and Hillyard contemplates “The combinations of styles shown are exemplary only and do not show every possible combination of cover or cover and accent component/components for a specific look. A look or specific look may be chosen for various visual, lighting, tactile, ergonomic, branding, and safety reasons; as well as to achieve any number of desired results. The differing diameters of the common escutcheon base 16 provide for a variety of concentric connection points to which the covers and rings can be added in nearly limitless permutations” and as such, the decorative patterns are bi-color decorative patterns would be an obvious design consideration that falls well within the purview of the invention as illustrated by Hillyard mentioned above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle core seat is provided with a catch slot (note annotated fig. below), and a side of the nozzle surface cover is provided with a catch engaged in the catch slot (note annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein an outer side of the nozzle core seat is provided with an external thread (see fig. 3 shows external threads on core seat stem), and while not explicitly disclosed, an inner side of the nozzle body would obviously be provided with an internal thread engaged with the external thread in order to install the device as intended.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein Hillyard shows one end of the nozzle core seat away from the core seat water inlet hole is provided with a nozzle core (14), and the nozzle surface cover is provided with a water outlet corresponding to the nozzle core (fig. 10.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, wherein Hillyard shows the nozzle core is one of a spherical nozzle core (14), a straight nozzle core, a rotary nozzle core and a multi-portion nozzle core.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hillyard and Holtsnider shows the bathtub massage nozzle according to claim 1, but Hillyard fails to show further comprising a fastener with an internal thread, and an installation thread is arranged on an outside of the nozzle body, and the fastener cooperates with the nozzle surface cover to clamp the nozzle body for installation and fixation. Attention is again turned to Holtsnider which teaches including a fastener with an internal thread (“wall fitting” par. 33), and an installation thread on an outside of the nozzle body (26) to cooperate with a nozzle surface cover to clamp the nozzle body for installation and fixation to a spa wall (par. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a fastener with an internal thread, and an installation thread is arranged on an outside of the nozzle body, and the fastener cooperates with the nozzle surface cover to clamp the nozzle body for installation and fixation to a spa wall as evidenced by the teachings above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 9,849,064 is directed to the state of the art of removable faceplate covers for a spa jet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754