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 .
Drawings
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 adjustment device, gestures, dispensing device, dispensing control element, adjustment control element, dispensing operating element, object, quantity preset device, 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In line 1, “The invention relates to” should be deleted. In addition, line 3, “by means of” should be deleted.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In at least claim 1, the phrase “to be” and “can be” is interpreted as vague and/or broad. The inclusion of such subjective expressions introduces ambiguity by suggesting that the claimed element(s) to which they relate, are optional;
In at least claim 1, the term, “designed” should read –configured—or –sized and configured--;
In claim 2, the phrase, “and/or” is unclear as to whether both components are required or an alternation. For clarity, the Examiner suggests wording, for example, “at least one of the first sensor or second sensor--. Clarification is requested.
In claim 2, the phrase, “in particular with” is unclear as to the structural relationship between the sensors. Clarification is requested.
In claim 16, “comprising the following steps” should read –the method comprising the steps of: --.
Since claims 2-15 and 17-19 are in the chain of dependency to claims 1 and 16, they too are subjected to the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of” in claims 1, 5, 9 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9 and 16, the word "means" is preceded by the word(s) “by” to use a "means" clause to recite a claim element as a means for performing a specified function. However, since no function is specified by the word(s) preceding "means," it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Applicant asserts that the claim element “means” is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear whether the claim limitation is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function or it is unclear whether the corresponding structure is sufficiently disclosed in the written description of the specification. If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for” in accordance with these guidelines: the phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language and the phrase must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Show that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function which would preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Claim limitation “by means of” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function [0005, 0020]. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Since claim 2-4, 6-8, 10-15 and 17-19 are in the chain of dependency to claims 1 and 16, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
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) 1-4, 6-7,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 9, 976, 290 B2 to Evans et al.
Re. claim 1, Evans discloses a sanitary fitting 10 (see fig. below), comprising an adjustment device 22 for adjusting the temperature of a liquid to be dispensed, in particular mixed water, and for adjusting the flow rate for the liquid to be dispensed, and a dispensing device 16,24 for dispensing liquid by means of a spout 16, on which a first sensor 42,44,46,48 (figs. 1-2) designed to detect a user's gestures ([col. 5, lines 40-68]), and a second sensor 42,44,46,48 (figs. 1-2) designed to detect objects, are located and whereby the sensors, the adjustment device and the dispensing device can be connected to a control device 34,36, 56 in such a way that the dispensing device can be controlled using the control device in such a way that the liquid is dispensed using the dispensing device based on a detected first gesture, and that the liquid is dispensed by the dispensing device while an object is detected by the second sensor ([col. 5, lines 40-68 thru col. 6, lines 1-56]).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 2, Evans further discloses the first sensor/second sensor 42,44,46,48 is designed as a non-contact sensor ([col. 6, lines 11-16]), with the first sensor/second sensor being designed as infrared or ToF sensors ([col. 6, line 11-13]).
Re. claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Evans further discloses the dispensing device 16, 24 has a manually operable dispensing control element 18, 22, 20, 42,44,46,48 the adjustment device has a manually operable adjustment control element 22 (lever portion).
Re. claim 4, Evans further discloses the control device 56 is designed to control the dispensing device independently of the position of the dispensing control element.
Re. claim 6, Evans further discloses the adjustment device 22 and the dispensing device 16,24 are designed as a single-lever device 22 such that both the dispensing can be initiated, and the temperature can be adjusted using the one lever. ([col. 6, lines 57-68 thru col. 7., lines 1-7]).
Re. claim 7, Evans further discloses at least one of the sensors in particular the first sensor, is arranged on a base unit and in that at least the other sensor, in particular the second sensor, is arranged on a support device and/or on the dispensing device, in particular on the spout (figs. 2,15).
Re. claim 11, Evans further discloses the control device is designed to dispense a predetermined amount of liquid using the dispensing device after a gesture has been detected by the first sensor ([col. 7, lines 39-54]).
Re. claim 12, Evans further discloses the detection areas of the first and second sensors are oriented in different spatial directions, in particular with the spatial directions being oriented perpendicular to each other (fig. 2).
Re. claim 13, Evans further discloses an indicator device 46, 48 is provided to indicate at least one operating state of the sanitary fitting, in particular where the indicator device is located on the support device.
Re. claim 14, Evans further discloses a power supply device 54 is provided for supplying the sanitary fitting with electrical power.
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) 8-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 12320106 B2 A1 to Funke.
Re. claim 8, Evans does not disclose a support arm. However, Funke teaches a support device 1 comprises a support arm 6 which is located on the base unit (see fig. below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Evans and include a support arm in order to control the movement of the spout for safety purposes and to prevent water from splattering in the wrong direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 9, Evans further discloses the control device is designed to dispense cold water by means of the dispensing device while an object is detected by the second sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Evans and include a method for dispensing in order to establish a protocol for the operation of using the faucet for safety purposes.
Re. claim 15, Evans does not disclose the power supply connected to the control device housing. Instead, Evans indicates the power supply device 54 (fig. 2) has a housing using which the power supply device can be detachably connected (figs. 12b-c,16a), in particular without the use of tools, to a housing of the flow module and electronics module 50,52. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connecting point of Evans from the control housing to the electronics housing in order to provide full power supply to the device in order to facilitate power to the sensors which regulate flow.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0301671 A1 to Przibylla et al.
Re. claim 16, Evans does not disclose a method for dispensing a liquid. Instead, Evans discloses a sanitary fitting 10 comprising an adjustment device 22 for adjusting the temperature of a liquid to be dispensed, in particular mixed water, and for adjusting the flow rate for the liquid to be dispensed, and a dispensing device 16,24 for dispensing liquid by means of a spout 16, on which a first sensor 42,44,46,48 (figs. 1-2) designed to detect a user's gestures ([col. 5, lines 40-68]), and a second sensor 42,44,46,48 (figs. 1-2) designed to detect objects, are located and whereby the sensors, the adjustment device and the dispensing device can be connected to a control device 34,36, 56 in such a way that the dispensing device can be controlled using the control device in such a way that the liquid is dispensed using the dispensing device based on a detected first gesture, and that the liquid is dispensed by the dispensing device while an object is detected by the second sensor ([col. 5, lines 40-68 thru col. 6, lines 1-56]). However, Przibylla teaches a method (claim 1) for controlling a sanitary faucet 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Evans and include the steps for a method for dispensing from a sanitary fitting as taught by Przibylla in order to establish a protocol for the operation of using the faucet for in the presence of a user and for safety purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, LU 602093 B1 to Zhu is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a faucet having multiple outlet channels where one channel dispenses water and the second channel dispenses cleaning fluid simultaneously with the water and where the water dispenses for a longer duration than the cleaning fluid.
PNG
media_image3.png
184
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm. Upon filing an amendment, please notify the Examiner to ensure timely processing for review. Applicant is referred to MPEP 714.02 and 608.01(o) in responding to this Office Action. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights