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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 05/31/2024. Since the initialing filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected for the following informalities:
“Support plane” and “perpendicular plane” are not clearly labeled or pointed out in drawings but are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, the support plane is the space in between the nozzle body walls and the nozzle core as shown in Fig 2. Perpendicular plane will be considered a structure that is vertical to the horizontal support plane.
“Arc surface” and “inclined transition surface” are not clearly labeled or pointed out in drawings but are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, an arc surface will be the curved areas near the nozzle surface cover. An inclined transition surface will be any space between the assumed support plane and the assumed arc surface.
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 “support plane,” “perpendicular plane,” “arc surface,” and “inclined transition surface” 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 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.
At present, no claim limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a switch function” is unclear as a switch function is only named and never given sufficient explanation on what the “switch function” is made up of. For the purposes of examination, the switch function is considered the bathtub massage nozzle that can switch or adjust the direction of flow.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdreau et al (US 6123274) in view of Drury et al (US 8978174).
Regarding claim 1, Perdreau discloses a bathtub massage nozzle (Fig 2, a massaging nozzle device 10) with a switch function (Perdreau, [Col. 3, ln. 12-17], discloses that the nozzle may be adjusted to change the flow of water) comprising a nozzle body, a nozzle core seat and a nozzle surface cover (Perdreau, Fig 2, the housing 20 is the nozzle body; the barrel 34 is the nozzle core seat; Fig 1, the scallop 52 is the nozzle surface cover) wherein the nozzle body comprises a water inlet end and an opposite water spraying end (Perdreau, Fig 2, the water inlet port 12 is opposite from the opening 46 where the water sprays out of; [Col. 4, ln. 58-61] discloses that the water stream exits from the opening toward the third nozzle downstream end 42), and the water inlet end is provided with a water inlet and an air inlet (Perdreau, Fig 2, the water inlet end is the lower end of the nozzle body 20, the water spraying end is the opposite. The water inlet port 12 and the air inlet port 13 are not on the spraying end; See annotated Figure 2 below for convenience);
the water inlet and the air inlet are staggeredly arranged relative to each other (Perdreau, Fig 2, the water inlet 12 is lower than the air inlet 13 indicating a “staggeredly” placed configuration), and the air inlet is closer to the water spraying end than the water inlet (Perdreau, Fig 2, the air inlet port 13 is higher than the water inlet port 12 making it closer to the opening 46. See the annotated Figure 2 below for convenience. The oval indicates the air inlet port);
the water spraying end forms an accommodating cavity extending to the water inlet end; the nozzle core seat is arranged in the accommodating cavity (Perdreau, Fig 1, the ramping profile 76 best represents the accommodating cavity, the housing 20 has a hollow inside that allows for the barrel 34 and other components to be housed in the housing which extends to the water inlet end), and the nozzle core seat is provided with a core seat water inlet and has one core seat air hole (Perdreau, Fig 3, the barrel 34 has the slot 70 which is the core seat water inlet hole. The barrel further has chamber opening 66), and the nozzle core seat is provided with sealing rubber rings between the core seat water inlet hole and the core seat air inlet holes, and at a side away from the core seat water inlet hole (Perdreau, [Col. 4 ln. 34-48] discloses that the pair of seals 22 or more are placed with one seal 22 placed in between the slot 70 and the chamber openings 66. The pair of seals cover from the first nozzle upstream 24 to the housing 20 and the second nozzle upstream end 28 and the housing meaning that there is a seal at the side away from the inlet hole as well. [Col. 4, ln. 34-48] further discloses that a seal could be rubber O-rings);
and the sealing rubber rings are tightly connected with an inner wall surface of the nozzle body (Perdreau, Fig 1, the barrel 34 has the seals 22 and the entire barrel goes inside of the housing 20 which means seals are connected with the inner wall surface of the housing; [Col.2 ,ln 54-58] discloses that the “at-least-two-seals” 22 are configured to form a “watertight seal” which indicates a “tightly connected” seal); a side of the nozzle core seat away from the core seat water inlet hole is provided with the nozzle surface cover (Fig 2, the scallop 52 is on the side of the barrel 34 opposite of the slot 70).
Perdreau does not disclose a plurality of core seat air inlet holes.
However, Drury teaches a jet nozzle device comprising of a nozzle body, nozzle core, (Drury, [Col 9, ln. 21-23] discloses the sleeve 14 acts as the nozzle core and the housing 12 acts as the nozzle body. The sleeve is meant to be accepted by the housing to let the two components interact together; Drury, Fig 2, sleeve 14 and housing 12).and the plurality of core seat air holes (Drury, [Col. 7, ln. 53-56] discloses the aeration section 32 has an aeration chamber 40, a water port 50, and air ports 52, which allows for water and air to mix to produce aerated water; Fig 10, air ports 52 is shown which act as the core seat air inlet holes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage nozzle device of Perdreau to include a plurality of core seat air inlet holes as taught by Drury. The nozzle device of Perdreau would be modified to include more than one core seat air inlet holes (Drury, Fig 10, air ports 52 is shown which act as the core seat air inlet holes). Use of a plurality of core seat air inlet holes would allow for aerated water to be produced based on the flow of air and water ([Col. 7, 48-65] discloses the sleeve 14 and housing 12 are configured with an aeration chamber 32 and how the structure of the device allows for the air and water to mix).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Perdreau has a middle part of the nozzle body that is provided with a support plane (Perdreau, Fig 2, See annotated Figure 2 below; the horizontal portions of 20 with the circle-ended line is the support plane) a protrusion is arranged on the support plane (Perdreau, Fig 1 and 2, ramping profile 76 is shown to have a thickness indicating a protrusion. Further, snap tabs 80 best represent the protrusions where there is a gap between the external threads and the snap tabs; see annotated Figure 2 below; dashed line indicates a protrusion 80) , and a side of the nozzle core seat opposite to the support plane is provided with a cam adapted to the protrusion (Perdreau, Fig 1, the latching tabs 72 act as the cam and are meant to connect to the retaining profile 74 which is built into the ramping profile 76).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Perdreau has the protrusion comprises a perpendicular plane perpendicular to the support plane (Perdreau, Fig 2, the protrusion 80 is following the same direction as the perpendicular plane in relation to the support plane. See annotated Figure 2 above), an arc surface connected with the perpendicular plane and parallel to the support plane (Perdreau, Fig 2, the flange 84 is the arc surface connected to a perpendicular plane and is parallel to the support plane), and an inclined transition surface extending from the support plane to the arc surface (Perdreau, Fig 2, the flange 84 extends down further to support plane).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Perdreau has the one end of the nozzle core seat away from the core seat water inlet hole is provided with a nozzle core (Perdreau, Fig 2, the barrel 34 has one end with a slot 70 and the other side with an opening 46 where water is sprayed out of the third nozzle 32 which acts as the nozzle core), and the nozzle surface cover is provided with a water outlet corresponding to the nozzle core (Perdreau, [Col 4, ln. 61-65] discloses that the third nozzle body 44 takes the aerated water stream to the opening 46 to exit; Fig 1, the scallop 52 is connected to the third nozzle 32 which ultimately is connected to the opening 44 to allow water to exit).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Perdreau has the nozzle core is one of a spherical nozzle core, a straight nozzle core, a rotary nozzle core and a multi-port nozzle core (Perdreau, Fig 1, the third nozzle 32 has a spherical body which is able to rotate due to the shape. The third nozzle 2 has a straight portion as well).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Perdreau has a fastener with an internal thread (Perdreau, Fig 1, the nut 60 is the fastener with an internal thread 86) , and an external thread is arranged on an outside of the nozzle body (Perdreau, Fig 1, the housing 20 has an external thread 56), and the fastener cooperates with the nozzle surface cover to clamp the nozzle body for installation and fixation (Perdreau, Fig 2, the nut 60, and the housing 20 are put together and the nut is matched to the external thread 56 to keep the structure connected).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdreau et al (US 6123274) in view of Drury et al (US 8978174) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2021/0259908).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Perdreau has a groove or slot that is meant to hold snap tabs connected to the nozzle body (Perdreau, Fig 3, the barrel 34 has snap tabs 80 that are meant to pair of slots 78 which means that there is a groove and an accommodating groove to be paired with it, just not in an annular shape). Perdreau also discloses the idea of sealing rings being made of rubber (Perdreau, [Col. 4, ln 45-48] discloses that the seal can be made with other materials like rubber).
Perdreau does not disclose the annular shape of the annular groove and annular accommodating groove and the annular accommodating groove is provided with one of the sealing rubber rings that is adapted to the annular groove.
However, Liu teaches a similar massage nozzle device including an annular groove, an annular accommodating groove, and the sealing members that are adapted to the annular groove (Liu, Fig 6, annular side portion 7b is the annular groove; the annular positioning groove 103 is the annular accommodating groove, and the second sealing element 6 is the sealing ring that is n O-ring shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the massage nozzle device of Perdreau to include the annular shape of the slot and snap tabs on the barrel body and scallop which are the nozzle core seat and nozzle surface cover, as taught by Liu. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the sealing rings to fit around the annular groove as taught by Liu. The massage nozzle device of Perdreau would be modified by changing the rectangular shape of the slots and corresponding tabs to a more annular shape and further include a pair of sealing rings that are adapted to fit around the annular shaped slots and be further secured when the tabs are put into place (Liu, Fig 6, annular positioning groove 103 is placed into the limiting shoulder 102 which has the annular side portion 7b then the sealing element 6 may be placed). Use of the annular shape could offer a more snug or tight fit with an O-ring shaped seal and prevent potential leaks when the nozzle is in use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdreau et al, in view of Drury, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Buck (US 2003/0089797).
Regarding claim 7, the modified massage nozzle device of Perdreau has a similar catch and catch slot structure however in reverse; the catch slot is the scallop and the catch is on the barrel. (Perdreau, Fig 3, slots 78 and tabs 80).
The modified device of Perdreau does not have the nozzle core seat is provided with a catch slot, and a side of the nozzle surface cover is provided with a catch engaged in the catch slot.
However, Buck teaches a similar nozzle device including a catch on the side of the nozzle surface cover and a catch slot on the nozzle core seat that corresponds to the catch (Buck, Fig 3, extending slots 41 act as the catch slot; deformable tabs 44 is the catch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified massage nozzle device of Perdreau to include a catch on the nozzle surface cover and corresponding catch slot on the nozzle core seat in order to have proper alignment and or have a secure assembly as taught by Buck. The reversal of the where the catch and the catch slot are does not affect the functionality of the pair especially when there is a male and female securing pair. Use of the catch and catch slot allow the proper alignment and would offer the same securement of components as the massage nozzle of Perdreau.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhao et al (US 2024/0122800), Vogtner et al (US 2022/0145653), Campbell (US 2014/0340872), Drury et al (US 2013/0048756), Loyd et al (US 2012/0174312), and Wooten (US 2008/0127407) are all jet massage nozzle devices with a similar staggered layout for the water inlet and air inlet, fasteners, threading, core water outlet hole, nozzle body, nozzle core body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H. BISHOP whose telephone number is (571)270-1093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 7:15am-4:15pm; Friday: 7:15-3:15pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/JAMIE H. BISHOP/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
