DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Jonte et al. US PG PUB 20120160349 and Parikh et al. US PG PUB 20130248033 are the closest art to the claimed invention, except it does not disclose O-rings, a side wall of the plastic connection joint is provided with a plurality of wavelike projections, the side wall of the plastic connection joint is in plug-in connection with a limiting snap ring.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims were filed on 6/28/2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonte et al. US PG PUB 20120160349 (“Jonte”) in view of Parikh et al. US PG PUB 20130248033 (“Parikh”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonte discloses anti-winding pull-out sensor faucet, comprising a main body (309), a plastic connection joint (320, para 0091 describes a non-conductive material such as thermoplastic) and a swinging elbow pipe (314); the plastic connection joint (320) is threadedly connected (ann. fig. 8 illustrates a threaded connection) to an upper end of the main body (ann. fig. 8), the swinging elbow pipe (314) is in plug-in connection with the plastic connection joint (320) and is provided above the main body (309), a pipe separator (345) is provided in plug-in connection (ann. fig. 8) with an upper end of the plastic connection joint (ann. fig. 8), a port (392) of the swinging elbow pipe (314) is in plug-in connection (400 connects to swinging elbow pipe 314) with a pull-out sprayer cartridge (400), and the pull-out sprayer cartridge (400) is in plug-in connection with a hand sprayer (318, upper end of hand sprayer 318 has a connector 402 that connects to 400); one end (402) of the hand sprayer (318) located within the pull-out sprayer cartridge (400, 402 is within the pull-out sprayer cartridge when the hand sprayer is not in the extended position) is connected to a pull-out hose (396), and an other end of the pull-out hose (upstream end of pull-out hose 396) is set throughout the pipe separator (345) along an inner wall of the swinging elbow pipe (314) (para 0099 “Spray head 318 illustratively includes a plated metal body 393. In one illustrative embodiment, a magnetic coupler 394 couples spray head 318 to spout 314. As is known, a flexible tube or hose 396 is fluidly coupled to spray head 318 and is received within spout 314. Hose 396 selectively supplies water from manual valve cartridge 348 and electrically operable valve 307 to an outlet 398 of spray head 318.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JONTE – ANNOTATED FIGURE 8
Jonte discloses the claimed invention, except in the swinging elbow pipe is provided with a wire clamp and the wire clamp is provided above the pull-out hose; the wire clamp is in plug-in connection with an inductor limiter, the inductor limiter is in plug-in connection with an inductor, and an upper end of the inductor is set through the swinging elbow pipe, an other end of the inductor passes over a top of the wire clamp and between an inner wall of the swinging elbow pipe and is set running through the pipe separator.
Parikh teaches in a swinging elbow pipe (16) is provided with a wire clamp (110) and the wire clamp (110) is provided above (para 0061) a pull-out hose (18); the wire clamp (110) is in plug-in connection (112) with an inductor limiter (98), the inductor limiter (98, 100, para 0056) is in plug-in connection (para 0056) with an inductor (70), and an upper end of the inductor (70) is set through (hole in spout 16, see fig. 7) the swinging elbow pipe (16), an other end of the inductor (70) passes over a top (see fig. 7) of the wire clamp (110) and between an inner wall (124) of the swinging elbow pipe (16) and is set running through a pipe separator (108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the sensor system, as disclosed by Jonte, by including a proximity sensor with a cable protector connected to a swinging elbow pipe, as taught by Parikh, for the purpose as “the wand 20 is pulled away from the spout 16 and causes the wand hose 18 to move through the spout 16, the cable protector 110 prevents the wand hose 18 from contacting and, possibly, damaging the communications/power cable 96.” (para 0061).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song US 10081931, Li et al. US 10227759, Liao et al. US 12043995, Marty et al. US PG PUB 20060202142, Benstead US PG PUB 20070040380, Li US PG PUB 20220235537, Pilatowicz et al. US 7748406, Evans et al. US 9758951.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753