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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 05/19/2026. Claims 1-10 remain pending, with claims 1-5 and 8-9 currently amended. Examiner note: the amendment to claim 1 requires an ascending angle for the sensor; however, it should be noted that the specification appears to only show support for this when the faucet base is horizontally mounted. Claim 8 requires the faucet to be vertically mounted and the vertical orientation shown in Applicant’s fig. 2 appears to show a descending angle. Clarification is requested.
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 8-9 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.
The term “generally” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, no guidance is given as to what would constitute “generally” in a quantifiable way to determine the scope of the claims. For example, is +/- 1%, 0.1%, 10% degrees from parallel or perpendicular considered “generally” perpendicular or parallel? Since the specification does not adequately define what is meant by “generally” as it pertains to perpendicular and parallel, the claims are indefinite.
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) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,438,672 (hereinafter Reeder) in view of US Patent 10,235,865 (hereinafter Thyroff).
Regarding claim 1, Reeder discloses a touchless faucet assembly (10) comprising a base (20, 22) configure to be mounted to a surface (13) including a top surface having a tapered shaped about a circumference of the base (note location of leader line 20 in fig. 1; base is tapered upward toward faucet main body) one or more sensors (36, 38) configured to detect a user input and generate a signal therefrom (col. 9, ln. 17-28); and a spout (14) removably coupled to the base, wherein the spout is configured to deliver a fluid therefrom (col. 7, ln. 58-61), and to be interchanged with another spout (user may replace spout (14) with another spout (14) if so desired – for example if original spout (14) is broken or needs repair, a new spout (14) is capable of replacing the broken original faucet; there is nothing disclosed in the prior art of Reeder that would preclude removal and replacement if so desired). Reeder fails to show the one or more sensors oriented to exhibit an ascending angle relative to the surface. Attention is turned to Thyroff in the same field of endeavor of sensor activated faucets which shows orienting a sensor to exhibit an ascending angle relative to a mounting surface (fig. 4D) to ensure coverage for where a user typically holds their hands during washing (col. 6, ln. 16-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to orient the sensor of Reeder to exhibit an ascending angle relative to the surface to ensure sensor coverage for where a user typically holds their hands during washing as evidenced by the teachings of Thyroff.
Regarding claim 2, Reeder discloses wherein the base (20, 22) comprises a puck (22) having the one or more sensors (36, 38) are embedded within (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Reeder discloses further comprising: a controller (54) communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, the controller being configured to control a state of the faucet based on the signal generated by the one or more sensors (col. 9, ln. 17-28).
Regarding claim 4, Reeder discloses wherein the controller (54) is configured to communicate with a valve assembly (60) to shift the faucet assembly between an “on” state in which fluid is delivered from the spout, and an “off” state in which no fluid is delivered from the spout (col. 9, ln. 21-28).
Regarding claim 5, Reeder discloses wherein the valve assembly comprises a solenoid valve (60) (col. 9, ln. 22-23).
Regarding claim 6, Reeder discloses wherein the one or more sensors (36, 38) detect movement of a user by infrared proximity, ambient light, ultrasonic proximity, capacitive proximity, laser, visual, or combinations thereof (infrared; col. 8, ln. 58-59; col. 9, ln. 17-18).
Regarding claim 9, Reeder discloses wherein the base (20, 22) is configured to be mounted to a horizontal countertop (13), wherein a first section of the spout coupled to the base extends substantially perpendicular to the countertop, a second section of the spout extends substantially parallel to the countertop, and a third section coupled to the second section includes a free end of the second section defining a fluid outlet (note annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder in view of Thyroff above, and further in view of US Patent 9,133,607 (hereinafter Schoolcraft).
Regarding claim 7, Reeder fails to show wherein the base includes a protrusion extending outwardly from the base, wherein the protrusion is configured to removably couple to an interior portion of a first end of the spout, and wherein the protrusion includes structure defining a fluid conduit fluidly coupled to an interior conduit of the spout. Attention is turned to Schoolcraft in the same field of endeavor of touchless faucet assemblies which shows configuring a base (121) with a protrusion (127) extending outwardly from the base that is configured to removably couple to an interior portion of a first end of a spout (109) and includes structure defining a fluid conduit (see fig. 5A) coupled to an interior conduit (116) of the spout (fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the base of Reeder to include a protrusion as taught by Schoolcraft to ensure a watertight seal between the faucet spout and water supply lines as evidenced by the teachings of Schoolcraft mentioned above.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder in view of Thyroff above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0195256 (hereinafter L’Henaff).
Regarding claim 8, Reeder fails to show wherein the base is configured to be mounted to a vertical wall, and wherein a first section of the spout coupled to the base extends substantially perpendicular to the wall. Attention is turned to L’Henaff in the same field of endeavor of plumbing faucets which shows configuring a base (102) to be mounted to a vertical wall, and a first section of a spout (104) extending substantially perpendicular to the wall (fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the base of Reeder such that it is configured to be mounted to a vertical wall, and wherein a first section of the spout coupled to the base extends substantially perpendicular to the wall depending on installation requirements and demands as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of L’Henaff mentioned above which shows mounting either horizontally (fig. 1A/B) or vertically (fig. 1C) depending on a user’s needs (par. 43).
Regarding claim 10, Reeder fails to show further comprising a second spout configured to be removably coupled to the base, the second spout having at least one of a different height, reach, CMF, or shape than the spout. Attention is turned to L’Henaff in the same field of endeavor of plumbing faucets which shows providing interchangeable faucet fixtures (204) for a faucet depending on a user’s design needs and preferences (see fig. 2) (par. 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a second spout configured to be removably coupled to the base, the second spout having at least one of a different height, reach, CMF, or shape than the spout to provide a plumbing fixture assembly kit to allow a user to select a desired faucet shape and size depending on their needs as evidenced by the teachings of L’Henaff mentioned above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights