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 Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “sensors generates” in line 1 of claim 19 should be --sensors generate--; and the language “a flow of water between at least one of the one or more of showers” is grammatically incorrect and should be --a flow of water between at least two of the one or more of showers--. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 6-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazz in view of US 10,625,279 (hereinafter L’Henaff).
Regarding claim 1, Mazz discloses a shower system (see Fig. 1), comprising one or more valves (see para. [0094]: “one or more digital valves 272-274”); and one or more showerheads (121-129), the one or more showerheads fluidly coupled to the one or more valves and receiving water therefrom (see para. [0094]), the one or more showerheads comprising a sprayer (shower outlet) dispensing water provided by the one or more valves(see para. [0075]). Mazz teaches one or more sensors (see para. [0094]: sensor) registering motion gestures made by a user (see para. [0102]: gestures); and an integrated user interface (see para. [0102]: controllers 160, 260) controlling operation of the sprayer; wherein the one or more sensors generates an internal signal to the one or more showerheads corresponding to the motion gesture (see para. [0102]: via touch-sensitive panel 163).
Although the one or more sensors and integrated user interface of Mazz is not part of a showerhead as claimed, attention is directed to the L’Henaff reference which teaches an analogous showerhead (100) comprising a touch-sensitive sensor (110) and an integrated user interface controlling the operation of a sprayer (102n) to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user (see abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ, in each of the Mazz’s showerhead, one or more sensors and an integrated user interface as taught by L’Henaff in order to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user.
Regarding claim 6, the shower system of claim 1, Mazz further comprising a digital valve (see para. [0075]: “digital valves”) fluidly coupled to a cold water supply and a hot water supply, the digital valve diverting water to one or more of the one or more showerheads.
Regarding claim 7, the shower system of claim 1, Mazz teaches wherein the integrated user interface comprises a master controller (260) receiving a command from the user, and wherein the master controller generates the internal signal and an external signal based on the command from the user (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the shower system of claim 1, Mazz in view of L’Henaff teach wherein one of the one or more showerheads is an overhead showerhead (similar to 128 of Mazz) comprising an overhead controller, the overhead showerhead electrically coupled to the integrated user interface or a master showerhead (similar to 124 of Mazz) such that the integrated interface or the master showerhead control actuation of the overhead showerhead.
Regarding claim 9, Mazz discloses a shower system (see Fig. 1), comprising one or more valves (see para. [0094]: “one or more digital valves 272-274”); and one or more showerheads (121-129), the one or more showerheads fluidly coupled to the one or more valves and receiving water therefrom (see para. [0094]), the one or more showerheads comprising a sprayer (shower outlet) dispensing water provided by the one or more valves(see para. [0075]). Mazz teaches one or more sensors (see para. [0094]: sensor) registering motion gestures made by a user (see para. [0102]: gestures); and an integrated user interface (see para. [0102]: controllers 160, 260) controlling operation of the sprayer; wherein the one or more sensors generates an internal signal to the one or more showerheads corresponding to the motion gesture (see para. [0102]: via touch-sensitive panel 163).
Mazz teaches different shower outlets (showerheads as claimed) to have different temperatures and /or flow rates (see para. [0077]); hence, a spray mode it met. However, Mazz is silent as to the one or more showerheads having a plurality of spray modes; and the one or more sensors and integrated user interface of Mazz is not part of a showerhead as claimed, attention is directed to the L’Henaff reference which teaches an analogous showerhead (100) comprising different spray modes, a touch-sensitive sensor (110), and an integrated user interface controlling the operation of a sprayer (102n) to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user (see abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ, in each of the Mazz’s showerhead, different spray modes, one or more sensors, and an integrated user interface as taught by L’Henaff in order to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user.
Regarding claim 10, the shower system of claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors of Mazz (see para. [0246]: sensors maybe integrated with shower outlets 121-129) which are more than three; hence, the one or more sensors would obviously comprise a first motion-sensing sensor generating an internal signal (see Fig. 2); a second motion-sensing sensor controlling a temperature of water delivered to the one or more showerheads (see para. [0246]); and a third motion-sensing sensor controlling the temperature of water delivered to each of one or more showerheads (see para. [0246]).
Regarding claim 11, the shower system of claim 10, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach the activation of the first motion-sensing sensor generates an external signal, and wherein a controller transmits the external signal to the one or more showerheads which changes the one or more spray modes as taught by L’Henaff.
Regarding claim 12, the shower system of claim 10, Mazz teaches sensors are used to regulate water temperature (see Mazz’s para. [0246]). L’Henaff teaches the use of touch-sensitive devices to sense a user command so as to change a showerhead parameter based on the command (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 60-61: “the duration of each user command detected”). Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach a length of time the motion gesture remains within a sensor range corresponds to a rise or drop in the temperature of the water.
Regarding claim 13, the shower system of claim 9, Mazz teaches sensors are used to regulate water valves (see Mazz’s para. [0094]) which regulate a spray. L’Henaff teaches the use of touch-sensitive devices to issue user command to change a showerhead’s spray (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 55-65: “the duration of each user command detected). Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach the user provides the motion gesture to the one or more sensors which changes the one or more spray modes, and wherein the one or more spray modes spray in sequence.
Regarding claim 15, the shower system of claim 9, Mazz teaches sensors are used to regulate water temperature (see Mazz’s para. [0246]). L’Henaff teaches the use of touch-sensitive devices to issue user command to change a showerhead parameter (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 60-61: “the duration of each user command detected). Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach the one or more sensors are touch-sensitive sensors, and wherein the user interacts with the touch-sensitive sensors adjusting a temperature of the water delivered to the one or more showerheads.
Regarding claim 16, Mazz discloses a shower system (see Fig. 1), comprising one or more showerheads (121-129); a plurality of sensors (see para. [0094]: sensor) operably coupled to the one or more showerheads and registering motion gestures made by a user (see para. [0102]: gestures), the plurality of sensors of Mazz (see para. [0246]: sensors maybe integrated with shower outlets 121-129) which are more than three. Furthermore, Mazz’s para. [0102], line 17+ discloses the different alternatives such as “the user touchless” or “perform gesture relative to touch-sensitive panel 163 (e.g. a swiping motion).” Although Mazz does not explicit recite a first motion-sensing sensor generating an internal signal; a second motion-sensing sensor controlling a temperature of water delivered to the one or more showerheads; and a third motion-sensing sensor controlling the temperature of water delivered to each of one or more showerheads.
Attention is directed to the L’Henaff reference which teaches an analogous showerhead (100) comprising touch-sensitive sensors (touch-sensitive devices 110) to sense a user’s motion gesture to change a showerhead spray modes based on the command (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 55-65: “the duration of each user command detected”) for controlling the operation of a sprayer (102n) to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user (see abstract). L’Henaff’s col. 7, lines 17-18 further teaches one or more touch-sensitive devices can additionally or alternatively be included in a different part of a shower assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ, in each of the Mazz’s showerhead one or more touch-sensitive sensors (motion sensors as claimed) as taught by L’Henaff in order to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user. Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously comprise a first motion-sensing sensor generating an internal signal (see Fig. 2 of Mazz); a second motion-sensing sensor controlling a temperature of water delivered to the one or more showerheads; and a third motion-sensing sensor controlling the temperature of water delivered to each of one or more showerheads.
Regarding claim 17, the shower system of claim 16, Mazz further teaches a controller (260) operably coupled to the one or more showerheads (see Fig. 2), the controller comprising a processing circuit (see para. [0092]: “processing circuit”) receiving a command from the plurality of sensors; wherein the controller controls operation of at least one of the one or more in response to receiving the command (see para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Mazz teaches the shower system as discussed regarding claim 16 above. Mazz further teaches sensors are used to regulate water temperature (see Mazz’s para. [0246]) but is silent as to a length of time the motion gesture remains within a sensor range corresponds to a rise or drop in the temperature of the water. Attention is directed to the L’Henaff reference which teaches an analogous showerhead (100) comprising different spray modes, a touch-sensitive sensor (touch-sensitive devices 110) to sense a user command to change a showerhead spray modes based on the command (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 55-65: “the duration of each user command detected”), and an integrated user interface controlling the operation of a sprayer (102n) to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user (see abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ, in each of the Mazz’s showerhead one or more touch-sensitive sensors as taught by L’Henaff in order to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user. Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach a length of time the motion gesture remains (“the duration of each user command detected” as taught by L’Henaff) within a sensor range corresponds to a rise or drop in the temperature of the water.
Regarding claim 19, Mazz teaches the shower system as discussed regarding claim 16 above. Mazz further teaches one or more sensors (touch-sensitive devices 110) are used to regulate water temperature (see Mazz’s para. [0246]).
Although the one or more sensors of Mazz is not part of a showerhead as claimed and is silent as to the plurality of sensors generates the internal signal to the one or more showerheads corresponding to the motion gesture in response to the user providing the motion gesture to one of the one or more showerheads. Attention is directed to the L’Henaff reference which teaches an analogous showerhead (100) comprising touch-sensitive sensors (touch-sensitive devices 110) to sense a user command to change a showerhead spray modes based on the command (see L’Henaff’s col. 6, lines 55-65: “the duration of each user command detected”) for controlling the operation of a sprayer (102n) to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user (see abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ, in each of the Mazz’s showerhead one or more touch-sensitive sensors as taught by L’Henaff in order to receive one or more touch inputs from a user during operation of the showerhead so as to switch from one spray configuration to another spray configuration in response to the inputs from the user. Hence, Mazz in view of L’Henaff would obviously teach the plurality of sensors generates the internal signal to the one or more showerheads corresponding to the motion gesture in response to the user providing the motion gesture to one of the one or more showerheads.
Regarding claim 20, the shower system of claim 16, wherein the user provides a motion gesture (see para. [0102]: gestures) to the plurality of sensors which activates or deactivates a flow of water between at least one of the one or more of showerheads.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazz in view of L’Henaff, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of DE 102016104793 A1 (hereinafter Wessely).
Mazz in view of L’Henaff teaches all of the claimed as discussed regarding claim 9 above except for the one or more sensors register an audio command, and wherein the audio command activates one of the one or more spray modes in response to receiving the audio command.
Wessely teaches an analogous shower system comprising different alternative sensors such as 3D gesture, biometric sensors, and voice recognition unit for operation of a shower.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the one or more sensors of Mazz with an audio command (a voice recognition unit) as taught by Wessely, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. 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). See MPEP 2144.06.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,692. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are a broader version of that of the patent. Claim 1 of the instant application has similar language to claim 1 of the patent, wherein one or more showerheads of the instant application fully met by a plurality of the showerheads in the patent. Claim 2 of the instant application has similar language to claim 1, lines 3-5 of the patent. Claim 3 of the instant application has similar language to claim 2 of the patent. Claim 4 of the instant application has similar language to claim 3 of the patent. Claim 5 of the instant application has similar language to claim 4 of the patent. Claim 6 of the instant application has similar language to claim 5 of the patent. Claim 7 of the instant application has similar language to claim 6 of the patent. Claim 8 of the instant application has similar language to claim 7 of the patent. Claim 9 of the instant application has similar language to claim 9 of the patent, wherein one or more showerheads of the instant application fully met by a plurality of the showerheads in the patent. Claim 10 of the instant application has similar language to claim 10 of the patent. Claim 11 of the instant application has similar language to claim 11 of the patent. Claim 12 of the instant application has similar language to claim 12 of the patent. Claim 13 of the instant application has similar language to claim 13 of the patent. Claim 14 of the instant application has similar language to claim 14 of the patent. Claim 15 of the instant application has similar language to claim 15 of the patent. Claim 16 of the instant application has similar language to claim 16 of the patent, wherein one or more showerheads of the instant application fully met by a plurality of the showerheads in the patent. Claim 17 of the instant application has similar language to claim 16, lines 14-19 of the patent. Claim 18 of the instant application has similar language to claim 17 of the patent. Claim 19 of the instant application has similar language to claim 18 of the patent. Claim 20 of the instant application has similar language to claim 19 of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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 and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed above with regard to claim 1 along with a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting rejections above.
No reasons for allowance will be presented at this time because it is unclear how applicant might amend the claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754