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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 5, and 9-14 are as previously presented. Claims 3-4, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 6-8 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 5-14 are currently pending and have been considered below. The Examiner notes that while claim 9 is marked as currently amended on the provided claims, the claim appears to have no change.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
35 USC § 112(a) Rejections
Certain 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
Existing Drawing Objections
Drawings/Specification
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The jet (40) is shown in Fig. 1 in the form of a flared shape which does not have support in the specification. The examiner suggests showing this feature as a strait dashed line.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 as follows:
“An adjusting element” in line 2 of claim 9. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to close or to open the opening in dependence on a feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed line” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A closure element” in line 5 of claim 10. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “opens or closes the opening” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “An adjusting element” in line 2 of claim 9, because para 24 of the applicant’s specification states “the adjusting element is in the form of a vane wheel.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as a vane wheel, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A closure element” in line 5 of claim 10, because para 23 of the applicant’s specification states “a closure element which opens or closes the opening by virtue of cutouts” The examiner will interpret this limitation as an element with cutouts, or equivalent thereof.
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 1-2 and 5-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “passively” in line 13 of claim 1, and the claim also recites “without user interaction” in line 13 of claim 1, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2 and 5-14 depend on claim 2, therefore claims 2, and 5-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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, 5, 7-8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dahan (US 12,343,690).
Regarding claim 1, Dahan discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1a, 1) for dispensing water, comprising
a jet former (Fig. 1a, 20 & 25) which is configured to form water to be dispensed (Col. 10: Ln. 13-17),
a first feed line (Fig. 1a, {21, 22} & Fig. 1b, 4; Col. 10: Ln. 8-12) for feeding water from a first provision device (Col. 4: Ln. 58-59 – “water main”) to the jet former,
a second feed line (Fig. 1a, 24 & Fig. 1b, 3; Col. 10: Ln. 2-8) for feeding water from a second provision device (Fig. 1a, {6-8, 30, 30’, 30’’, 32}) to the jet former,
wherein the jet former is configured to form a jet in dependence on a feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed line (Col. 10: Ln. 13-17; Water from the first or second feed line is required to discharge water and form a jet, which is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a usually forceful stream of fluid (such as water or gas) discharged from a narrow opening or a nozzle,” where item 20 is the nozzle that discharges the water.).
wherein the jet former is configured to change a form of the jet passively, without a user interaction (Col. 10: Ln. 33-37; The first feed line and second feed line provide water to a portion of the jet former (20) which changes the form of the jet passively when passed through the mesh layers (124), mixing with air, and then discharged from the spout outlet (118), without a user interaction.),
wherein changing a form of the jet passively comprises directly actuating the jet former by volume flows of the first feed line and the second feed line (Col. 10: Ln. 33-37; The form of the jet is directly actuated, where actuated is defined as “to make a machine work” by the Cambridge dictionary, when the volume flows of the first feed line and the second feed line exit the jet former and the form of the jet will change form dependent on those volume flows such as from a form of the jet by the volume flow of feed water with a form of the jet lower volume feed and a form of the jet with a higher volume feed. Additionally, the changing of the jet form when passing through the mesh layers, which are part of the jet former, happens by directly actuating the jet former by the volume flows of the feed of water, by causing aeration to occur and discharging the feed of water out of the jet former.)
Regarding claim 2, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahn further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to dispense water from a conditionable water system (Col. 7: Ln. 43-46).
Regarding claim 5, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahan further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises an outlet area (Annotated Fig. 1b) through which the water is dispensed (Col. 10: Ln. 13-17); wherein the outlet area comprises a first section (Fig. 1b, 122 & 114) and a second section (Fig. 1b, 116), the first section covering a first part of the outlet area (Annotated Fig. 1b) and the second section covering a second part of the outlet area (Annotated Fig. 1b); and wherein the jet former is configured to pass at least a part of the water from the first feed line and at least a part of the water from the second feed line through the first section (Col. 10: Ln. 18-32).
Furthermore, in addition to structural limitations, claim 5 is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The materials or article worked on are “at least a part of the water from the first feed line” and “at least a part of the water from the second feed line”. The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
856
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahan further discloses wherein the jet former is configured in such a way that an outlet area of the jet is increased or reduced in dependence on the feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed line (Col 10: Ln. 13-37; The outlet area of the jet changes as it exits the first feed line or the second feed line as it enters a part of the jet former (20) via the mixing chambers (114 & 122) and further changes as it passes through the mesh layers (124) and flows through the outlet (118) which in dependence on which feed line is utilized.)
Regarding claim 8, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahan further discloses wherein the jet former is configured in such a way that an emission direction of the jet is changed in dependence on the feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed line (Col 10: Ln. 13-37; The emission direction of the jet changes as it exits the first feed line or the second feed line as it enters a part of the jet former (20) via the mixing chambers (114 & 122) because the emission direction must change as it passes from the first feed line or the second feed line to mix in the mixing chambers and then pass through the mesh layers (124) flow through the outlet (118) which is shown as a central exit area, which in dependence on which feed line is utilized.).
Regarding claim 12, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahan further discloses the apparatus comprising a third feed line (Fig. 1a, 22 & Fig. 1b, 2; Col. 9: Ln. 63-66) for feeding water from a third provision device (Fig. 1a, {9-11, 31, 31’, 31’’}), wherein the third feed line is configured to guide water past the jet former (Col. 9: Ln. 63-66; The feed line is capable of supplying a liquid such as water.).
Regarding claim 13, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 12.
Dahan further discloses wherein the third feed line is guided at least substantially centrally through the jet former (Fig 1a-1b Shows the third feed line (Fig. 1a, 22 & Fig. 1b, 2) guided at least substantially centrally through the jet former (Fig. 1a, 20 & 25).).
Regarding claim 14, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahan further discloses wherein the provision devices are configured to provide filtered water (Col. 7: Ln. 41-46).
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(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahan in view of Neoperl Gmbh (DE202011104072U), hereinafter ‘0472.
Regarding claim 6, Dahan discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Dahn further discloses wherein the jet former has an opening (Fig. 3-5, opening of 10) for adding air to the water to be dispensed (Col. 10: Ln. 35-37).
Dahan does not explicitly disclose wherein the jet former is configured in such a way that the opening is closed or opened in dependence on the feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed.
However, ‘0472 teaches a prior art comparable jet former (Fig. 1-2, 1) has an opening (Fig. 3-5, opening of 10) for adding air to the water to be dispensed (Para. 0047 – “Since the water can essentially only pass through the flow holes 10 in the area of the rotor disk 9 through the aerator housing, the downstream jet breaker 4 receives the water flowing towards it only through the flow holes 10 of the rotating rotor disk 9. The jet separator 4 thus receives only one pulsed jet, dependent on the rotational speed of the rotor disk 9, and then accelerates it for further air enrichment and mixing.”), wherein the jet former is configured in such a way that the opening is closed or opened in dependence on a feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed line (Para. 0047 – “The jet separator 4 thus receives only one pulsed jet, dependent on the rotational speed of the rotor disk 9, and then accelerates it for further air enrichment and mixing. The pulse frequency is defined by the rotational speed and by the number of flow holes 10 contained on the respective circular path of the rotor disk 9. This process creates a water jet that can be pulsed by briefly opening and closing the flow”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the jet former is configured in such a way that the opening is closed or opened in dependence on a feed of water from the first feed line or from the second feed.) as taught by ‘0472, into the apparatus disclosed by Dahan to save water and yielding the predictable result of discharging water out of the jet former (Para. 0009 & 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Dahan in view of ‘0472 discloses the apparatus according to claim 6.
However, ‘0472 further teaches wherein the jet former has an adjusting element (Fig. 3, 4 & 9) which is configured to close or to open an opening (Fig. 3-5, opening of 10; Para. 0047 – “The jet separator 4 thus receives only one pulsed jet, dependent on the rotational speed of the rotor disk 9, and then accelerates it for further air enrichment and mixing. The pulse frequency is defined by the rotational speed and by the number of flow holes 10 contained on the respective circular path of the rotor disk 9. This process creates a water jet that can be pulsed by briefly opening and closing the flow”) in dependence on a feed of water from a first feed line (Para. 0044; The first feed line is the spout nozzle.)
Regarding claim 10, Dahan in view of ‘0472 teaches the apparatus according to claim 9.
‘0472 further teaches wherein the adjusting element comprises a vane (Fig. 3-4; 10; Para. 46 – “all flow holes 10 have a longitudinal axis inclined to the axis of rotation, such that the water flowing through the inclined flow holes 10 exerts a rotational driving force on the rotor disk 9”) which is arranged in such a way that the vane moves the adjusting element (Para. 0047 – “The jet separator 4 thus receives only one pulsed jet, dependent on the rotational speed of the rotor disk 9, and then accelerates it for further air enrichment and mixing. The pulse frequency is defined by the rotational speed and by the number of flow holes 10 contained on the respective circular path of the rotor disk 9. This process creates a water jet that can be pulsed by briefly opening and closing the flow”) depending on the incident flow from the first feed line (Para. 0044; The first feed line is the spout nozzle.), with the result that a closure element (Fig. 3, 4) of the adjusting element opens or closes the opening.
Regarding claim 11, Dahan in view of ‘0472 teaches the apparatus according to claim 9.
‘0472 further teaches wherein the adjusting element is in the form of a vane wheel (Fig. 2 & 3 shows the adjusting element in the form of a vane wheel.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection on page 11, that “the phrase "without user interaction" in this sense is further qualifying the term "passively" in order to give the term meaning. This is not an instance of a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation, but rather by further claim language explaining the meaning of the term "passively"”, the examiner respectfully disagrees because para. 0032 of the applicant’s states “the design of the apparatus as a passive component without active control elements” and thus the term “passively” appears to be defined by the applicant as “without active control” which is a broader limitation followed by a narrower and separate limitation of “without a user interaction.”
Regarding the 35 USC § 102(a)(2) rejection on pages 12-13 corresponding to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 12-14 that element 20 of Dahan is merely mixing device and not a jet former, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP § 2111) and further that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP § 2111-II) and as recited in the office action “a jet, which is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a usually forceful stream of fluid (such as water or gas) discharged from a narrow opening or a nozzle,” where item 20 is the nozzle that discharges the water” and thus the examiner interprets a “jet former” as any structure that can discharge a fluid from a narrow opening or nozzle, and does not exclude structures that include mixing. The jet former is further evidenced by Dahan, who recites “Mesh layers 124 may be provided at the spout outlet 118 to even a flow of liquid(s) out of the second mixing device 20.” (Col. 10: Ln. 33-35), where the even flow of liquids out of the second mixing device is a jet that has been formed by the jet former (20).
Regarding the 35 USC § 102(a)(2) rejection on page 13 corresponding to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 12-14 that the jet former is not actuated by the volume flows, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the definition of actuated is defined as “to make a machine work” by the Cambridge dictionary and thus the jet former is actuated by the volume flows to allow the jet former to provide a flow of liquid out of the jet former.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 13, 2026
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights