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 .
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) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Humpert et al. US 5,014,749.
Regarding claim 1, Humpert discloses a tube assembly comprising:
a main body 11;
a tube body 3 or 3 and 5 together having an end (away from the connection to the main body); and
a retention assembly fixedly coupling the end of the tube body to the main body (Figs. 1-3), the retention assembly comprising:
an elongated bearing 2 having a first end (at 21) and an opposite second end (at 23 or at 25) defining a length, the first end coupled to the main body; and
a fitting 31 or 27 disposed within the tube body and spaced apart from the end of the tube body (Fig. 1), wherein the second end of the elongated bearing is coupled to the fitting (Fig. 1), and wherein a majority of the length of the elongated bearing is disposed within the tube body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the retention assembly further comprises a retention clip 24 disposed at the second end of the elongated bearing and coupled to the fitting.
Regarding claim 6, the elongated bearing defines a through opening (inside 2) extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the second end of the elongated bearing is coupled to the fitting such that the main body and the tube body are in flow communication via the through opening (see Fig. 1, flow is inside 2).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the tube assembly is part of a water faucet (see specification).
Regarding claim 8, Humpert discloses a faucet comprising:
a faucet body 11;
a spout tube 3 having an end (away from the connection to the main body); and
a retention assembly coupling the end of the spout tube to the faucet body (Figs. 1-3), the retention assembly comprising:
an elongated spout bearing 2 having a first end (at 21) and an opposite second end (at 23) defining a length, the first end coupled to the faucet body;
a fitting 31 disposed within the spout tube and spaced apart from the end of the spout tube (Fig. 1); and
a retention clip 24 disposed at the second end of the spout bearing, wherein the second end of the spout bearing is coupled to the fitting via the retention clip (Fig. 1), and wherein a majority of the length of the spout bearing is disposed within the spout tube (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the spout tube is non-removable from the faucet body (the spout tube is non-removable if left screwed in).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the spout tube is rotatable relative to the faucet body (the spout tube is rotatable relative to the faucet body as it is not rigidly connected).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the spout bearing defines a through opening (inside 2) extending between the first end and the second end, the through opening configured to receive a flexible tube extending at least partially through the faucet body (the through opening is capable of receiving a flexible tube, which is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 16, further comprising a bushing 22 disposed between the end of the spout tube and the faucet body.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the first end of the spout bearing is threadingly coupled to the faucet body (at 21, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the spout tube is a wetted spout tube (the spout tube can be wetted).
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Wurgler US 6,623,045.
Regarding claim 3, Humpert discloses the second end of the elongated bearing coupled to the fitting but lacks it threadingly coupled. Wurgler discloses a threaded couplings 28, 29, 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coupling of Humpert a threaded coupling as disclosed by Wurgler as a matter of simple substitution of types of couplings and/or to provide a removable, secure connection which comes with threaded couplings.
Regarding claim 5, Humpert lacks the tube body includes an interior step configured to at least partially receive the fitting. Wurgler discloses the tube body includes an interior step (see Fig. 2, interior step created by 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interior step as disclosed by Wurgler to partially receive the fitting of Humpert as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to provide a strong connection for the fitting to the tube body.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Davidson US 2009/0276954.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Humpert lacks the fitting is brazed within the tube body. Davidson discloses the fitting 110 is brazed within the tube body 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the fitting to the tube body of Humpert by brazing as disclosed by Davidson as a matter of simple substitution of types of connections and/or to provide a strong, secure connection which comes with brazed connections.
Regarding claim 19, Humpert discloses a method of assembling a faucet, the method comprising:
providing a spout tube 3 with a fitting 31 disposed therein and spaced apart from an end of the spout tube, the fitting connected within the spout tube;
coupling a first end of an elongated spout bearing to a faucet body (at 21) such that an opposite second end of the spout bearing extends from the faucet body; and
coupling the second end of the spout bearing to the fitting via a retention clip 24, wherein a majority of a length of the spout bearing is disposed within the spout tube. Humpert lacks the fitting brazed within the spout tube. Davidson discloses the fitting 110 is brazed within the tube body 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the fitting to the tube body of Humpert by brazing as disclosed by Davidson as a matter of simple substitution of types of connections and/or to provide a strong, secure connection which comes with brazed connections.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Moncayo et al. US 2010/0006164.
Regarding claim 9, Humpert lacks the spout tube is formed from brass and the fitting is brazed into the spout tube. Moncayo discloses the spout tube 20 is formed from brass and the fitting 28 is brazed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spout tube of Humpert from brass as disclosed by Moncayo and braze as disclosed by Moncayo the fitting into the spout tube of Humpert as a matter of simple substitution of materials and connection features and/or to provide a strong, waterproof material such as brass and a strong connection such as brazing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Rodriguez et al. US 5,396,929.
Regarding claim 13, Humpert lacks the retention assembly further includes one or more O-rings supported on the spout bearing between the first end and the second end, the one or more O-rings sealing against an inner surface of the spout tube. Rodriguez discloses the retention assembly further includes one or more O-rings 17 supported on the spout bearing between the first end and the second end, the one or more O-rings sealing against an inner surface of the spout tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an O-ring as disclosed by Rodriguez between the spout bearing and the spout tube of Humpert to provide better sealing.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Sawaski et al. US 2013/0248617.
Regarding claim 14, Humpert discloses the spout bearing defines a through opening extending between the first end and the second end but lacks the through opening having a flexible tube extending at least partially through the faucet body. Sawaski discloses a flexible tube 484 extending partially through the faucet body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flexible tube as disclosed by Sawaski in the spout bearing through opening of Humpert as a matter of “obvious to try” to provide a contained flow for the water of the faucet.
Regarding claim 15, Humpert lacks the retention assembly further includes a retainer collar configured to secure at least a portion of the flexible tube within the first end of the spout bearing. Sawaski discloses the retention assembly further includes a retainer 404 collar configured to secure at least a portion of the flexible tube within the first end of the spout bearing. 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 retainer collar as disclosed by Sawaski as matter of “obvious to try” to provide holding the flexible hose so that it does not move around.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Wood et al. US 4,804,206.
Regarding claim 18, Humpert is silent as to the spout tube is a wetted spout. Wood discloses a wet arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spout tube of Humpert a wet arrangement as disclosed by Wood as a matter of simple substitution and/or making Humpert capable of being wetted.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert et al. US 5,014,749 in view of Davidson US 2009/0276954 in view of Sawaski et al. US 2013/0248617.
Regarding claim 20, Humpert lacks coupling a flexible hose within a through opening of the spout bearing such that the flexible hose and the spout tube are in fluid communication. Sawaski discloses a flexible tube 484 extending partially through the faucet body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flexible tube as disclosed by Sawaski in the spout bearing through opening of Humpert as a matter of “obvious to try” to provide a contained flow for the water of the faucet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eaton, Burns, Lehner, Meehan, Bisonaya, and Andersen disclose faucets with spout tube and spout bearing.
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