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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/16/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the word “are” should be removed to fix a grammatical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5, and 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that a controller is introduced in claim 3, but claim 4 does not depend from claim 3. Examiner recommends changing the dependency of claim 4 to depend from claim 3 to overcome this rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the valve assembly" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that a valve assembly is introduced in claim 4, but claim 5 does not depend from claim 4. Examiner recommends changing the dependency of claim 5 to depend from claim 4 to overcome this rejection.
The term “substantially” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 “substantially” in a quantifiable way to determine the scope of the claims. For example, is +/- 1%, 0.1%, 10% degrees from parallel or perpendicular considered “substantially” perpendicular or parallel? Since the specification does not adequately define what is meant by “substantially” as it pertains to perpendicular and parallel, the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent 8,438,672 (hereinafter Reeder).
Regarding claim 1, Reeder discloses a touchless faucet assembly (10) comprising a base (20, 22) including one or more sensors (36, 38), the base (20, 22) being configured to be mounted to a surface (13); 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).
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 wherein the one or more sensors (36, 38) are configured to detect a user input and generate a signal therefrom, the assembly 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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 9,856,635 is directed to the state of the art of faucets having both vertical and horizontal mounting configurations. US Patent 8,162,236 is directed to the state of the art of kits of plumbing fixtures providing a variety of faucet fixtures.
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