DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/747,483 - MASSAGE NOZZLE FOR HOT TUB, filed on 6/19/24. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11" and "12" have both been used to designate the water inlet, Figure 2 appears to be incorrect in the number designating the water inlet and should be listed as 11 and not 12. 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. 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.
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, 7 and 10 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 claim 4, the limitation, “the hollow cylindrical Venture core body, lacks antecedent basis in the claim as it depends from claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “the support platform” lacks antecedent basis as it depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdreau et al. (US 6,123,274) in view of Yuhas et al. (US Pub. 212/0005819) in view of Backer (US Pub. 2020/0038287).
Regarding claim 1 NOTE the claim limitation “welded” is considered a product by process claiming. “Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP § 2113).
Perdreau shows a massage nozzle for a hot tub (10; spa jet), comprising a nozzle body (shown at 22), a nozzle body Venturi core (34; venturi at 14), a rotary bushing (38; note, col 4, lines 66-67) and a nozzle surface cover (84); wherein the nozzle body comprises a water inlet end (at 12) and an opposite water spraying end (at 44), wherein the water inlet end is provided with a water inlet (12) and an air inlet (13), the water inlet and the air inlet are staggeredly arranged relative to each other (Fig. 2), and the air inlet is closer to the water spraying end than the water inlet (Fig. 2); the water spraying end is formed with an accommodating through hole (shown at 74; Fig. 1) allowing for insertion of the rotary bushing (Fig. 1); two ends of the nozzle body Venturi core are sealed (22; Fig. 2; note, col. 4, lines 33-48; attached and sealed which equals the product that is welded and sealed; it appears to be frictionally attached at 24, below 24 where 12 enters; and at the wall near 20 and 48) and core (Fig. 2). Perdreau fails to show the connections are welded. However, Yuhas details that welding is a known way of connecting nozzle parts (¶ [0012; 0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perdreau to include the connection between the venturi core and the nozzle body be welded for a secure attachment and seal as shown by Yuhas.
Perdreau shows a single air inlet and fails to show a plurality of air inlets. However, Backer shows a venturi core (Figs. 11 & 12) with a plurality of air inlets (362; ¶ [0161]).
Regarding Claim 14 Perdreau shows massage nozzle for a hot tub according to claim 1, further comprising a fastener (60) provided with an internal thread, an external thread is provided one an outside of the nozzle body (56), and the fastener cooperates with the nozzle surface cover (via 82 and 58) to clamp the nozzle body so as to be installed and fixed (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Colin (US Pub. 2005/0039251) shows the general state of the art; Ton (US 5,810,262) and Gravatt (US 5,353,447) show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 2/4/2026
Prosecution Insights