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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/26.
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:
The first inlet (120 is a water valve)
The second inlet (130 is an air valve)
The first inlet and the combined outlet being centered around a common axis (Claim 4)
An axis of the second inlet being perpendicular to a common axis of the first inlet and the combined outlet (Claim 5)
Any structure or connections necessary for a controller to control the temperature of water dispensed from the first inlet (Claim 11)
A clog sensor configured to automatically detect a clog and activate a controller (Claim 12)
A screen configured to have a position and/or a dispersion pattern changed (Claim 13)
A screen configured to have a position and/or a dispersion pattern changed wirelessly (Claim 13)
A camera proximate the plumbing tool outlet (Claim 15)
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9, 11 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 requires that “the air pressure and the water pressure are controlled wirelessly”
Claim 9 states that “the controller operates responsive to voice commands”.
Claim 9 is an apparatus claim while the claim as written appears to be claiming a process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p).
For the purpose of examination the claim is being interpreted as requiring that ‘the controller is configured to respond to voice commands”.
Claim 11 states “wherein the controller sets a temperature of the water from the first inlet”
Claim 11 is an apparatus claim while the claim as written appears to be claiming a process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p).
For the purpose of examination the claim is being interpreted as requiring that ‘wherein the controller is configured to set a temperature of the water from the first inlet’.
Claim 13 states “a screen having a position and or a dispersion pattern”.
Claim 14 states “wherein the ratio controlled via artificial intelligence”.
Claim 14 states that “wherein the ratio controlled via artificial intelligence”.
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim while the claim as written appears to be claiming a process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation “the ratio is controlled via artificial intelligence or machine learning” in claim 14 introduces a ‘means’ for controlling a ratio.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 14 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.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an axis of the second inlet is substantially perpendicular to a common axis of the first inlet and the combined outlet" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which defines “the combined outlet inline with the second inlet”. As such Applicant has not established a second inlet structure which can both be inline with the combined outlet and perpendicular to the combined outlet.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ratio" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 which has not introduced/defined a ratio to be controlled.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the ratio controlled via artificial intelligence or machine learning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 which has not introduced a controller or other means of controlling a ratio or mixed air and water.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the ratio controlled via artificial intelligence or machine learning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant seeks protection for a ratio of air and water in the system to be controllable by “artificial intelligence or machine learning” however Applicant has not claimed or described in the specification what such a program would be learning from, what it would be acting on or what would be considered ‘artificial intelligence’ compared to a controller reacting to a sensor.
For the purpose of examination the claim limitation is being interpreted as requiring a controller (which has not been positively recited but is required as discussed above) be configured to utilize sensor data during its operation).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the user interface" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 which does not recite a controller or a user interface.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,098,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of ‘531 requires a plumbing tool comprising a rigid body with a first inlet for receiving water, a second smaller inlet for receiving air on a monolithic body which mixes the air and water and dispenses it through a combined outlet in line with the second inlet to clear a clog.
Regarding claim 2, ‘531 does not claim the body as being in a Y-shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the rigid body into a Y-shape because Applicant has not disclosed that the Y shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the rigid body to perform equally well with either shape as both would perform the same function of supplying water and air to a common chamber and delivering a combination of the two at a combined outlet. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify ‘541 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patently distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 4, ‘531 does not claim the first inlet and combined outlet being centered around a common axis. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first inlet and combined outlet to be centered around a common axis because Applicant has not disclosed that the first inlet and combined outlet being centered around a common axis provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the rigid body to perform equally well with either shape as both would perform the same function of supplying water and air to a common chamber and delivering a combination of the two at a combined outlet. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify ‘541 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patently distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,6-13,15-19 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.
Claims 5 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior art of record does not disclose a plumbing tool which is a monolithic structure comprising a rigid body having a first inlet for receiving pressurized water, a second inlet smaller than the first for receiving pressurized air, a hollowed cavity for mixing the air and water and an outlet in-line with the second inlet and comprising threading.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0050624 (Pangramuyen) is a plumbing device for clearing drain lines comprising different ‘screens’ for creating different spray patterns and effects however they are not configured to be set ‘wirelessly’.
US 2007/0266485 (Tackett) is a plumbing tool for clearing pipes comprising a rigid body with a first inlet for pressurized air, a second inlet for pressurized water, first and second control valves and a combined outlet however the structure is not a monolithic body and instead relies on various separate and distinct coupling structures to form its inlets and outlets.
US 9,481,987 (Salzer) is a system for automatically spraying fluid into drain lines utilizing a control system and sensors however it is a nozzle which intercepts a drain line and only delivers pressurized water instead of mixing water and air before delivering a combination to unclog a drain.
US 10,323,397 (Mimms) is a plumbing tool for clearing clogs comprising a combined outlet and two inlets for separate fluid streams which are aligned along a common outlet however it is not designed to intercept a drain line.
US 10,975,555 (Junca) is a plumbing device configured to permanently intercept a drain pipe for clearing clogs comprising a first inlet, a second inlet and a combined outlet however neither inlet is of a smaller diameter than the other and configured to receive pressurized air or is inline with the combined outlet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights