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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims are drawings, filed on 07/14/2026, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Drawing objections regarding missing labels are overcome by amendment.
Claims 1-15 are pending; claims 10-15 are new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following structure as described in the specification:
Structure related to continuous actuation of the actuator being required to maintain the second position.
Structure related to once the actuator has been actuated, the selected position is maintained until the next actuation.
Structure that convers stroke motion of the push mechanism into rotary motion of the flow setting means.
Structure of the transmission. Transmissions come in a myriad of varieties and the drawings do not show any details.
Examiner notes that these particular functions require significantly different structures related to the actuator and the flow selecting means. There is missing detailed structure regarding the claimed features of the device. In other words, the drawings are too minimalist and fail to show exactly how the device operates. As such, their respective details should be shown.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “flow setting means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it satisfies the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “means”; 2) is it coupled with functional language “to set a flow rate though the line”; and 3) it is not modified by sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the flow setting means is disclosed as a throttle valve; Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 discloses: “, wherein the transmission is configured to convert the stroke motion of the push mechanism into the rotary motion of the flow setting means such that the flow setting means advances by one position increment per actuation of the push mechanism”. However, independent claim 1 discloses the flow setting means configured to toggle between a first position and a second position. As such, it is unclear what “one position increment per actuation of the push mechanism” means if there are just two positions. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret one position increment as the full transition from the first position to the second, or vice versa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al (U.S. 2020/0147627).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a spray head (shower head 1000) for a water faucet (spray head 1000 is capable of being used in a faucet; alternatively a shower is a faucet of sorts) comprising
a line (defined by 100, seem on Fig 9) for a liquid (water) having an inlet (1111) and an outlet (1112) (as seen in Fig 2),
a flow setting means (water outflow control assembly disclosed in Par 0037, defined at least by 10, 20, 30 and 40; seen in detail in Fig 1 and 10) for setting a liquid flow rate through the line (as disclosed in Par 0058), and
an actuator (defined by button 400 and push rod 20) connected to the flow setting means (as seen in Fig 19 and Par 0063),
wherein the actuator is configured to toggle the flow setting means at least between a first position (disclosed as “second stop position”, seen in Fig 13 and disclosed in Par 0058), in which the flow setting means opens a first flow cross-section D1 in the line (first cross-section defined space available for water to flow through, seen in Fig 13 and shown below), and a second position (disclosed as “first stop position” when maximum flow is allowed therethrough, seen in Fig 12 and disclosed in Par 0057), in which the flow setting means opens a second flow cross- section D2 in the line (second cross-section defined space available for water to flow through, seen in Fig 12 and shown below), wherein a ratio V = D2/D1 is at least two (Par 0058 discloses the flow in the first position, i.e. D1 seen in Fig 13, being 40% of the maximum flow; wherein D2 is the maximum flow allowed, i.e. 100%. Therefore D2=1 and D1=0.4; so V = 1/0.4 = 2.5, which is at least 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the flow setting means is a throttle valve (as seen in Figs 7-14, the flow setting means includes a rotor 30 that faces 331 and 332 and gaps 342 and 341 that depending on their rotational position throttle the flow of water passing through the line, see the different positions seen in Figs 12-14).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 3, wherein the throttle valve performs a rotary motion between the first position and the second position (the rotor 30 rotates from the first position seen in Fig 13 to the second position seen in Fig 12 by pressing the push rod 20 which causes the rotor to rotate, as explained in Pars 0058-0060).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a push mechanism (push rod 20) and a transmission (defined by push blocks 22 and tooth blocks 32), wherein the transmission is configured to convert a stroke motion of the push mechanism into a rotary motion for actuating the flow setting means (as disclosed in Pars 0058-0060, when the push rod 20 is pressed, the push blocks 22 of the push rod interact with tooth blocks 32 of the rotor to cause the rotor to rotate; thus converting a pushing motion into rotary motion, as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 5, wherein the push mechanism comprises a spring return device (elastic member 40, which is a spring, as seen in Figs 1-14).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the flow setting means can only be toggled between the first position and the second position (Examiner notes that the claim is written with “comprising of” language, which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps {see MPEP 2111.03 I}. Therefore, the limitation of “only toggled between first and second position” does not exclude any other structure in the prior art that relate to other positions, i.e. other flow settings; notwithstanding, if the user of Lin toggles the flow setting means between first and second positions only, this reads on claim language).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein once the actuator has been actuated, a selected position is maintained until a next actuation (Pars 0058-0060 disclose the actuator configured to be actuated in order to change position; that is, once the actuator has been actuated, the selected position is maintained, as claimed).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 3, wherein the throttle valve is pivotably mounted in the line and performs the rotary motion about a pivot axis within the line (the rotor 30, which is part of the throttle valve, pivots about a shaft 23; therefore, the shaft 23 defines a pivot axis; wherein the rotor 30 and shaft 23 are within the line 100, as seen in Figs 9-10).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the actuator is configured to return a push mechanism (defined by push rod 20) to an initial position after every actuation while the flow setting means retains the position selected by the actuation (as disclosed in Pars 0057-59, the push rod 20 is pressed to change the position of the flow setting means, then the push rod returns to its initial position through the biasing of spring 40, wherein the push rod needs to pressed again in order to change the position of the flow setting means, i.e. the flow setting means maintains position selected).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 5, wherein the transmission is configured to convert the stroke motion of the push mechanism into the rotary motion of the flow setting means such that the flow setting means advances by one position increment per actuation of the push mechanism (as disclosed in Pars 0057-60, one push of the actuator, through push rod 20, moves the flow setting means from one position to another, see Figs 12 and 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grohe (DE 4020615 A1). Note: references made in parenthesis are referencing the translation previously provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Grohe teaches a spray head (1) for a water faucet (spray head 1 is used for a shower or bath, which are a type of faucet) comprising
a line (defined by water channel inside handle 2) for a liquid (water) having an inlet (defined at entry opening 27) and an outlet (defined at outlet openings 28) (as seen in Figs 3-5),
a flow setting means (defined by the valve seen in Fig 3) for setting a liquid flow rate through the line (as disclosed in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner), and
an actuator (defined by button 7) connected to the flow setting means (as seen in Fig 3 and described in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner),
wherein the actuator can be used to toggle the flow setting means at least between a first position (seen in Fig 3), in which the flow setting means opens a first flow cross-section D1 in the line (in the position seen in Fig 3, flow comes out of a single outlet opening 28, i.e. bottom outlet opening 28 seen in Fig 3 and 5; as such D1 is defined only by the cross-section of the bottom outlet opening 28 seen in Fig 5), and a second position (described in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner, which is when the button 7 is pressed and the valve opens flow both outlet openings 28), in which the flow setting means opens a second flow cross- section D2 in the line (D2 is defined by the combination of both outlet openings 28 seen in Fig 5), wherein a ratio V = D2/D1 is at least two (D2 is both outlets 28 and D1 is only the bottom outlet 28, seen in Fig 5. As such V = 2/1 = 2; thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 7, Grohe teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the flow setting means can only be toggled between the first position and the second position (the flow setting means can only be pushed from D1 to D2, as claimed; see highlighted section in the translation provided)
Regarding claim 8, Grohe teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein continuous actuation of the actuator is required to maintain the second position (as disclosed in the abstract, the valve returns to its initial position, i.e. first position, when the pressure on the button is removed; as such, continuous actuation of the actuator, i.e. button 7, is required to maintain the second position).
Regarding claim 11, Grohe teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the flow setting means does not completely close the flow cross-section of the line in any position (the flow setting means is pushed from D1, which allows water to exit out of only one opening 28, to D2 which allows water to exit out of both openings 28; i.e. it does not completely close the cross-section of the line in any position).
Regarding claim 10, Grohe teaches a spray head (1) for a water faucet spray head 1 is used for a shower or bath, which are a type of faucet) comprising
- a line (defined by water channel inside handle 2) for a liquid having an inlet (defined at the side of entry opening 27) and an outlet (defined at the side of outlet openings 28),
- a flow setting means (defined by the valve seen in Fig 3) for setting a liquid flow rate through the line (as disclosed in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner), and
- an actuator (defined by button 7) connected to the flow setting means (as seen in Fig 3 and described in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner),
wherein the flow setting means is a throttle valve (the valve seen in Fig 3 is a throttle valve, as it throttles water flow from one opening 28 to both openings 28 depending on its position, see highlighted section of translation),
wherein the actuator is configured to toggle the flow setting means at least between a first position (seen in Fig 3), in which the flow setting means opens a first flow cross-section D1 in the line (in the position seen in Fig 3, flow comes out of a single outlet opening 28, i.e. bottom outlet opening 28 seen in Fig 3 and 5; as such D1 is defined only by the cross-section of the bottom outlet opening 28 seen in Fig 5), and a second position (described in the section highlighted in the translation provided by Examiner, which is when the button 7 is pressed and the valve opens flow both outlet openings 28), in which the flow setting means opens a second flow cross-section D2 in the line (D2 is defined by the combination of both outlet openings 28 seen in Fig 5), wherein a ratio V = D2/D1 is at least 2 (D2 is both outlets 28 and D1 is only the bottom outlet 28, seen in Fig 5. As such V = 2/1 = 2; thus reading on claim language; Examiner notes that both opening are labeled with the same number, they look the same, and Grohe does not mention the openings being different to one another; as such, they are interpreted to be the same to each other), and
wherein continuous actuation of the actuator is required to maintain the second position (as disclosed in the abstract: the valve returns to its initial position when pressure on the button is removed, i.e. continuous activation is required to maintain the second position).
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (U.S. 2020/0147627).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1, wherein the ratio V = D2/D1 is greater than 2.5 (Par 0058 discloses the flow in the first position, i.e. D1 seen in Fig 13, being approximately 40% of the maximum flow; wherein D2 is the maximum flow allowed, i.e. 100%. Therefore D2=1 and D1=0.4; so V = 1/0.4 = 2.5; since Lin discloses D1 being approximately 40% of D2, in the case D1 is slightly less than 40%, the ratio V becomes greater than 2.5).
If it is found that Lin does not teach the ratio V being greater than 2.5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable ratio between the two cross-sections, including the claimed ratio of greater than 2.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Lin discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable ratio depending on intended flow rates desired for each mode of the flow setting means. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the ratio be greater than 2.5.
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches the spray head according to claim 1. However, Lin does not teach the ratio V = D2/D1 being at least 3.
Nonetheless, Lin teaches a further position (shown in Fig 14) in which the flow setting means is positioned such that most of the water is blocked only leaving a small cross-section that allows for a dripping function (see Par 0059). In this case, the relation between a fully open cross-section and a cross-section that allows for dripping, say 1% of water would be V = 100/1 = 100, which is greater than 3. As such, Lin already envisioned a ratio of at least 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable ratio between the two cross-sections, including the claimed ratio of greater than 3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Lin discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable ratio depending on intended flow rates desired for each mode of the flow setting means. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the ratio be greater than 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding drawing objections, Applicant has amended the drawings such that labels are applied to different parts of the invention. However, there is still missing detailed structure regarding the claimed features of the device. In other words, the drawings are too minimalist and fail to show exactly how the device operates. For this reason, Examiner maintains the drawing objections.
Regarding the 102 rejections in view of Lin, Applicant argues that Lin does not teach the a first cross-section D1 and a second cross-section D2 that satisfies the claimed ratio V=D2/D1 being at least 2. Applicant states that Par 0058 discloses the position D1 allowing 40% of flow, i.e. Lin discloses a ratio of volumetric flow rates, which do equate to flow cross-section area. Applicant further states that volumetric flow rates depend on both cross-sectional area and pressure, wherein the claimed cross-sectional areas are geometric restrictions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lin teaches a water outflow control assembly that is installed inside a showerhead, wherein the user can change the output of water by operating a button inside the showerhead (see Pars 0012-13). As such, the aim of Lin is to change the outflow of water with the volume and pressure of source water being maintained the same. Therefore, if water source pressure and volume are maintained constantly, the flow output is changed by changing the cross-sectional areas D1 and D2 exclusively. As such, since Par 0058 discloses that D1 equals to a 40% reduction in water volume, this must mean a 40% reduction of cross-sections, thus reading on claim language; wherein if D2 is 100% and D1 is 40%, then D2/D1=2.5.
Applicant further argues against the rejection of claim 7 in view of Lin, stating that Lin does not teach the flow setting means that “can only be toggled” between the first and second position because Lin teaches 3 positions in total. Applicant cites case law that states that “claims should always be read in light of the specification”, which Examiner does not contest. However, Applicant’s own specification (page 4, lines 6-9) states that “the actuator can also select several positions, wherein the ratio of the flow cross-sections is not increased, but only further subdivided, in particular in equal increments (i.e., the possible maximum volume flows per position then differ, for instance, by an equal amount of a volume flow, respectively)”. As such, in light of the specification, the flow setting means does not strictly have to toggle only between the first and second positions. Therefore, Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is valid, which notes that the claim is written in open-ended, inclusive language “comprising”, which does not exclude additional unrecited elements. Moreover, if the user toggles from D1 to D2 only, this reads on the claim.
Regarding 102 rejection in view of Grohe, Applicant argues that the cross-sections of openings 28 are not within “the line”, instead they are exit ports of the valve chamber. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has interpreted the line to be the defined by that water channel inside handle 2, wherein the valve is inside the channel, and thus the openings 28 are in the line. As such, this arguments is not persuasive. The claim remains broad enough; such Grohe can be interpreted in a way that reads on the claim. See figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
273
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues against Grohe, stating that Examiner erroneously presumes that D2/D1=2, wherein Examiner relies on the two openings 28 for the teachings of the two cross-sections D1 and D2, because Grohe does not disclose that the drawings are up to scale and is silent with respect to dimensions. Applicant argues that the rejection relies solely on the use of unscaled drawings to presume the claimed ratio. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ratio of D2/D1=2 is accomplished because both openings 28 are the same, i.e. they are replicas of one another, wherein D2 is a cross-section defined by both openings 28 being open and D1 is a cross-section defined by a single opening 28. Therefore, D2 is twice that of D1, i.e. D2/D1=2. Applicant argues in a nutshell that it is not proper to interpret the two openings 28 as being the same, since Grohe does not disclose the drawings being to scale and does not disclose their dimensions. Examiner notes that Grohe does not disclose the openings being of different cross-sections or sizes; in fact, the same label “28” is used to denote both openings. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the disclosure of Grohe indicates that these openings are the same, i.e. when the valve is pushed the flow goes from one opening to two of the same. Furthermore, the claim language specifies ratios of cross-sections; sizing or dimensions are not part of the claim language; therefore, Examiner can interpret the drawings are stated herewith.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
