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.
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 push mechanism, the transmission and spring return 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include any of the reference signs mentioned in the description. 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.
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.
Examiner notes that these particular functions require significantly different structures related to the actuator and the flow selecting means. 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 § 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 and 9 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 om 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 can be used 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 can 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, the selected position is maintained until the 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 8 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 provided by Examiner herewith.
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 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).
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 2 is 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.
Conclusion
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
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights