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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on 6/22/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2309434.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
In claim 9, “resilient means” is seen as invoking 112(f) and is disclosed in the specification at [0119] and drawings as spring 80.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 14, next to last line, there are 2 punctuation marks “. ;” after “the second valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lixil Corp WO 2015/146360 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lixil Corp discloses an apparatus comprising:
a valve assembly including:
at least one valve inlet 25 adapted to connect to a fluid supply pipe 29;
two or more valve outlets including a first valve outlet 41 and a second valve outlet 77;
a switching element 70 selectively allowing fluid communication between the at least one inlet and the first valve outlet and/or the second valve outlet, wherein:
when fluidic pressure acting on the switching element is below a threshold fluidic pressure, the switching element operates in a first mode in which the at least one inlet and the first valve outlet are in fluid communication, and the at least one inlet and the second valve outlet are not in fluid communication (Figs. 3a, 6a);
when the fluidic pressure acting on the switching element meets or exceeds the threshold fluidic pressure, the switching element operates in a second mode in which the at least one inlet and the second valve outlet are in fluid communication (Figs. 3b-2c, 6b-6c); and
the switching element is actuated by fluidic pressure and switches from operating in the first mode to operating in the second mode and vice versa, as a result of a change in fluidic pressure through the threshold fluidic pressure (fluidic pressure moves switching element based on the pressure overcoming spring 80);
a first set of fluid delivery outlets for providing a first spray mode, the first set of fluid delivery outlets being in fluid communication with the first valve outlet (see Figs. 3b and 6b); and
a second set of fluid delivery outlets for providing a second spray mode, the second set of fluid delivery outlets being in fluid communication with the second valve outlet (see Figs. 3c and 6c).
Regarding claim 2, wherein when the switching element operates in the second mode, the valve assembly allows fluid communication between the at least one valve inlet and the first valve outlet (see Fig. 6(b) for second mode).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the valve assembly includes at least one pressure relief valve (valve in Figs. seen as a pressure relief valve).
Regarding claim 4, wherein at least one of the two or more valve outlets includes a flow regulator to limit a maximum flow rate output from said valve outlet (the size of the apertures is seen as a “flow regulator to limit a maximum flow rate output from said valve output”).
Regarding claim 5, wherein when the switching element operates in the second mode, the valve assembly prevents fluid communication between the at least one inlet and the first valve outlet (see Fig. 6(b) for second mode).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the valve assembly includes a diverter valve assembly (valve in Figs. seen as a diverter valve).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the switching element includes a moveable carriage that translates relative to the two or more valve outlets (see Fig. 4, movable cylinder, valve 70).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the moveable carriage is perforated with one or more apertures to enable fluidic connection, in use, between the at least one valve inlet and one of the two or more valve outlets (see Fig. 5, apertures 41).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the switching element further includes a resilient means (see Fig. 4, movable cylinder, valve 70 with spring 80).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the moveable carriage is perforated with two or more apertures and wherein the apertures are distributed around a circumference of the carriage (see Fig. 5, apertures 41).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the apertures include a first set of apertures and a second set of apertures offset from the first set of apertures along a length of the moveable carriage (see Fig. 4, apertures 41, 77).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the apertures include a single set of apertures (see Fig. 4, apertures 41 and/or 77 seen as a “single set”).
Regarding claim 13, further including a controller 110 for varying flow rate from a fluid supply pipe to the at least one valve inlet.
Regarding claim 14, Lixil Corp discloses a system for installation in an ablutionary environment, comprising:
a valve assembly including:
at least one valve inlet 25;
two or more valve outlets including a first valve outlet 41 and a second valve outlet 77;
a switching element 70, wherein:
when in a first mode in which fluidic pressure acting on the switching element is below a threshold fluidic pressure, the at least one inlet and the first valve outlet are in fluid communication, and the at least one inlet and the second valve outlet are not in fluid communication (Figs. 3a, 6a);
when in a second mode in which the fluidic pressure acting on the switching element meets or exceeds the threshold fluidic pressure, the at least one inlet and the second valve outlet are in fluid communication (Figs. 3b-2c, 6b-6c); and
the switching element switches from operating in the first mode to operating in the second mode and vice versa based on fluidic pressure (fluidic pressure moves switching element based on the pressure overcoming spring 80);
a first set of fluid delivery outlets for providing a first spray mode, the first set of fluid delivery outlets being in fluid communication with the first valve outlet (see Figs. 3b and 6b);
a second set of fluid delivery outlets for providing a second spray mode, the second set of fluid delivery outlets being in fluid communication with the second valve outlet (see Figs. 3c and 6c); and
a controller 110 for varying the flow rate from the fluid supply to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, further including a mixing valve (mixing valve not shown but implicit in any shower apparatus).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the controller varies the fluidic pressure acting on the switching element, thereby switching the switching element between modes of operation (Figs. 17, 19-21, [0090]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the controller is a digital controller (Figs. 17, 19-21, [0090]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the digital controller causes the switching element to: switch from the first mode to another mode of operation upon user actuation of the digital controller; and/or switch to the first mode after a predetermined time period (Figs. 17, 19-21, [0090]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the controller causes the switching element to: switch from the first mode to another mode of operation upon user actuation of the digital controller; and/or switch to the first mode once a limiting condition is met (Figs. 17, 19-21, [0090]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the limiting condition is that the predetermined time period has elapsed or a predetermined volume of fluid has been output from the fluid delivery outlets (Figs. 17, 19-21, [0090]-[0098]).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lixil Corp WO 2015/146360 A1 in view of Laker US 7,431,224.
Regarding claim 4, Lixil Corp lacks at least one of the two or more valve outlets includes a (separate) flow regulator to limit a maximum flow rate output from said valve outlet. Laker discloses a (separate) flow regulator 6 to limit a maximum flow rate output from said valve outlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separate flow regulator as disclosed by Laker in the valve outlet of the Lixil Corp to regulate/limit the flow out of the valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dai discloses a similar valve assembly. Shfaram and Schumacher disclose flow regulators to limit the outlet flow rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921
Prosecution Insights