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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 3/25/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 is cancelled and pending claims 1-7, 9-21 are addressed below.
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 4 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 4 recites “the shower head portion is cylindrical”, depending upon claim 1, which conflicts with the newly added limitation of claim 1, defining “a thickness of the shower head portion …tapers as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis …”. It is not clear how the shower head portion can be cylindrical and still tapers. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (US20110133003) in view of Su (US D656219).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Lu discloses a hand shower (fig. 7: handle, 10, 30, and 50) comprising:
an inlet portion (handle opening connected downstream of hose B) for connecting the hand shower to a water supply (see fig. 7);
a handle portion (handle between hose B and 30, connectors 30 and 10);
PNG
media_image1.png
683
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 1 (Lu)
a shower head portion (50) attached to the handle portion (fig. 7), the shower head portion comprising a shower face (fig. 1: 11), a back face (fig. 1: 54) opposite the shower face, and a edge face (face at 504, 922) on an end portion of the shower head portion (see fig. 2) that extends from the shower face (61) to the back face (54) and is opposite the inlet portion (edge face at 504 is downstream of the shower device; fig. 7);
a first outlet portion (501; fig. 1) of the shower head located on the shower face (51), the first outlet portion is configured to direct a shower spray in a first direction (direction through openings 501); and
a second outlet portion (504, 922; fig. 2) of the shower head located on the edge face (see fig. 2), the second outlet portion is configured to direct a power wash spray in a second direction (direction through openings 504, 922 that is perpendicular to the first flow direction through openings 501; fig. 2) different from the first direction for cleaning hard surfaces (since the shower head includes the second outlet portion as claimed, the prior art device has the physical structure that can be used to direct a power wash spray for cleaning any surfaces).
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of teaching in the primary reference, which is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Lu does not teach the edge face is convex, and the shower head portion and handle portion share a longitudinal axis throughout the hand shower and a thickness of the shower head portion in a thickness direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis tapers as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis away from the handle portion.
Su discloses a hand shower having an edge face that is convex (see annotation below), and the shower head portion and handle portion share a longitudinal axis (see annotation below) throughout the hand shower and a thickness of the shower head portion in a thickness direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis tapers as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis away from the handle portion (see annotation shown below). A width of the shower head portion, in a width direction that is perpendicular to both the thickness direction and to the longitudinal axis, does not taper as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis away from the handle portion (see annotation below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Su to provide the edge face is convex, and the shower head portion and handle portion share a longitudinal axis throughout the hand shower and a thickness of the shower head portion in a thickness direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis tapers as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis away from the handle portion; and a width of the shower head portion, in a width direction that is perpendicular to both the thickness direction and to the longitudinal axis, does not taper as the shower head portion extends along the longitudinal axis away from the handle portion. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a different hand shower shape for aesthetic and user preference of their bathroom style.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 2 (Su)
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.)
Regarding claim 2, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the end portion comprises a furthermost end of the shower head portion relative to the handle portion (see fig. 7).
Regarding claims 5-6, Lu discloses the hand shower of claim 4, except for specific dimensions of the shower, wherein the edge face comprises a length of about 5 mm to about 50 mm (claim 5); the shower face comprises a length of about 50 mm to about 120 mm and a width of about 10 mm to about 60 mm (claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the edge face comprises a length of about 5 mm to about 50 mm (claim 5); the shower face comprises a length of about 50 mm to about 120 mm and a width of about 10 mm to about 60 mm (claim 6) since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Applicant appears to have place no criticality in the dimensions of the claimed parts in light of the disclosure in paragraphs 9-10 (“In any of these embodiments, the edge face may comprise a length of about 5 mm to about 50 mm. In any of these embodiments, the shower face may comprise a length of about 50 mm to about 120 mm and a width of about 10 mm to about 60 mm”, emphasis included).
Regarding claim 7, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the handle portion is cylindrical (see Lu - fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the edge face is rounded (see Su – fig. 2 annotated above).
Regarding claim 10, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the shower head portion has a larger cross-sectional area than the handle portion (see Lu - figs. 1-2, 7; and Su – fig. 2 as annotated above).
Regarding claim 11, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the first outlet portion comprises a plurality of first nozzles (611) and the second outlet portion comprises one or more second nozzles (922, 504; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 11, wherein the one or more second nozzles comprise a blade nozzle (922, 504) configured to deliver the power wash spray with a linear sheet-like flow spray pattern (the slit opening shape would result in linear sheet-like spray pattern). It is noted that the current claim language does not distinguish any specific regarding the scope of “power wash spray”, and therefore any washing spray would meet this limitation of the claim.
Lu does not teach multiple of the blade nozzles.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate duplicates of the blade nozzles according to user preference or intended spray effect, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Regarding claim 14, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the hand shower is configured to deliver the shower spray or the power wash spray based on actuation of a user-activated actuator (guide bolt 40; Abstract: “When the housing is turned about the guide bolt, the branch channels are changed to communicate with the guide channel for different spray modes, providing a user-friendly effect.”). It is noted that the current claim language does not distinguish any specific regarding the scope of “power wash spray”, and therefore any washing spray would meet this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 14, wherein the user-activated actuator is configured to open or block one or more water passageways to the first outlet portion or the second outlet portion for delivering the power wash spray or the shower spray (see figs. 5A and 5B and flow arrows).
Regarding claim 18, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 14, wherein the user-activated actuator (guide bolt 40) is positioned on the handle portion (on portion 10 of the handle).
Regarding claim 19, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, wherein the second direction is angled between about 45 to about 135 degrees relative to first direction (90 degrees; see figs. 5A, 5B).
Claim(s) 3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (US20110133003) in view of Su (US D656219), further in view of Winter (US 20170189918).
Regarding claim 3, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, but does not teach the hand shower is configured to deliver 20% to 50% more water pressure across the edge face in a power wash mode compared to water pressure across the shower face in a shower mode.
However, Winter discloses various features of a shower head, including a pressure regulator or restrictor to restrict flow within the shower head to a particular target range of nozzle exit pressures, given known residential water line pressure is often between 35 to 80 psi (par. 48-49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to configure the hand shower to deliver a range of targeted water pressures for different modes, using pressure regular or restrictor as taught by Winter, according to user preference and intended spray performance of the selected modes. No inventive effort would be required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Winter to provide the hand shower is configured to deliver 20% to 50% more water pressure across the edge face in a power wash mode compared to water pressure across the shower face in a shower mode. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the optimized spray effect for the intended use of each mode.
Regarding claim 20, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, but does not teach water pressure of the shower spray is from about 45 psi to about 80 psi based on a water supply pressure of about 30 psi to about 80 psi.
However, Winter discloses various features of a shower head, including a pressure regulator or restrictor to restrict flow within the shower head to a particular target range of nozzle exit pressures, given known residential water line pressure is often between 35 to 80 psi (par. 48-49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to configure the hand shower to deliver a range of targeted water pressures for different modes, using pressure regular or restrictor as taught by Winter, according to user preference and intended spray performance of the selected modes. No inventive effort would be required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Winter to provide water pressure of the shower spray is from about 45 psi to about 80 psi based on a water supply pressure of about 30 psi to about 80 psi. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the optimized spray effect for the intended use of each mode.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (US20110133003) in view of Su (US D656219), further in view of Lu et. al. (US D828906 S).
Regarding claim 4, Lu, as modified above, discloses the hand shower of claim 1, but does not teach the shower head portion is cylindrical.
However, Lu et. al. discloses a hand shower having the shower head portion being cylindrical (see figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shower head portion cylindrical, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (US20110133003) in view of Su (US D656219), further in view of Shieh (US 20100038454).
Regarding claim 13, Lu discloses the hand shower of claim 11, but does not teach the one or more first nozzles comprise a first set of first nozzles that comprise a first shape and a first size, and a second set of first nozzles that comprise a second shape and a second size different from the first shape and the first size.
Shieh discloses a comparable shower head having mix of different shapes and size nozzles (fig. 15), including arc shaped, circular, non-circular.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Shieh to provide the one or more first nozzles comprise a first set of first nozzles that comprise a first shape and a first size, and a second set of first nozzles that comprise a second shape and a second size different from the first shape and the first size. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating various desired selectable spray effects according to user preference or intended tasks (See Abstract).
Claims 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (US20110133003) in view of Su (US D656219), further in view of Rexach (US 20160060852).
Regarding claim 16, Lu discloses the hand shower of claim 14, but does not teach the user-activated actuator comprises a capacitive touch sensor.
Rexach teaches a shower having a user-activated actuator that is a capacitive touch sensor (par. 121), button, knobs, or levers, as one of the control inputs well known in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Rexach to utilize one of the control mechanism known in the art, including a capacitive touch sensor. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating known methods of flow control (See Paragraphs 119-121).
Regarding claim 17, Lu discloses the hand shower of claim 14, but does not teach the user-activated actuator comprises a push button.
However, Rexach teaches a shower having a user-activated actuator that is a capacitive touch sensor, button, knobs, or levers, as one of the control inputs well known in the art (par. 121 and 119).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu to incorporate the teachings of Rexach to utilize one of the control mechanism known in the art, including a push button. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating known methods of flow control (See Paragraphs 119-121).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, and 9-21 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection presented 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights