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
Currently claims 1-13 are pending and claim 13 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/06/2026.
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: connection mechanism in claim 8.
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 8- 10 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a vapour dispensing device” in lines 2-3, this is double inclusion as the vapour dispensing device has already been claimed in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a vapour dispensing device” in line 3, this is double inclusion as the vapour dispensing device has already been claimed in claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lacher (U.S. 8,205,810).
With respect to claim 1, Lacher discloses a vapour dispensing device nozzle (figures 20-21, producing a vapour such that it produces bubbling water. Column 3 rows 25-30), the nozzle comprising a plurality of apertures (apertures of 5).
With respect to claim 2, Lacher discloses the nozzle comprises a neck portion (being the neck portion at 48) and a face portion (being the bottom face of 2), with the neck portion having a smaller axial cross-sectional area than that of the face portion (as shown in figure 2).
With respect to claim 3, Lacher discloses the plurality of apertures is in the form of a layer of apertures positioned in the face portion of the nozzle (being the layer of the holes/apertures in plate 5).
With respect to claim 4, Lacher discloses a second layer of apertures (at 20) is arranged adjacent the first layer of apertures (as shown in figure 20) and the apertures in the first layer are offset from the apertures in the second layer (as shown in figure 20, where the apertures in 5 are tilted and thus offset from those in 20).
With respect to claim 5, Lacher discloses the apertures are honeycomb in shape (see figures 2, 10, and 20).
With respect to claim 8, Lacher discloses the nozzle has the first part of a connection mechanism (threads), so that the nozzle can be fitted to a vapour dispensing device (allowing the nozzles to be threaded to the source).
With respect to claim 11, Lacher discloses a vapour dispensing device comprising a nozzle according to claim 1 (being the inclusion of the nozzle with the sanitary unit, receiving hot water (including water vapor) and air from the surrounding (including vapor)).
With respect to claim 12, Lacher discloses the device has a first vapour source (being the intruded gas/air, column 7 rows 5-10) and a second vapour source (hot water being supplied from the faucet to the nozzle) and at least one of the plurality of apertures in the nozzle is provided with vapour from the first source (as the vapor included in the hot water source of a facet and air brought in both go through the apertures in 5) and at least one other of the plurality of apertures in the nozzle is provided with vapour from the second source (as the vapor included in the hot water source of a facet and air brought in both go through the apertures in 5).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grether (U.S. 2006/0102750).
With respect to claim 1, Grether discloses a vapour dispensing device nozzle (figure 1), the nozzle comprising a plurality of apertures (apertures of 15).
With respect to claim 6, Grether discloses the nozzle comprises rubber material (paragraph 0031).
With respect to claim 7, Grether discloses wherein the nozzle comprises metallic material (paragraph 0028).
Claims 1, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum (U.S. 2013/0134239)
With respect to claim 1, Blum discloses a vapour dispensing device nozzle (figure 1), the nozzle comprising a plurality of apertures (apertures of 10).
With respect to claim 8, Blum discloses the nozzle has the first part of a connection mechanism (paragraph 0011, discloses a screw or bayonet connection), so that the nozzle can be fitted to a vapour dispensing device (allowing the housing of the nozzle to be attached to a water outlet).
With respect to claim 10, Blum discloses the connection mechanism comprises a clip or part of a bayonet fitting, the clip or bayonet fitting adapted to fit to a corresponding second part on a vapour dispensing device (disclosing a bayonet connection which would then attach to a corresponding second part of the vapor dispensing device (fluid outlet)).
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers (U.S. 2020/0070191).
With respect to claim 1, Myers discloses a vapour dispensing device nozzle (title, figures 1-4, having nozzle 17), the nozzle comprising a plurality of apertures (apertures 20).
With respect to claim 11, Myers discloses a vapour dispensing device comprising a nozzle according to claim 1 (title, abstract, and figure 1).
With respect to claim 12, Myers discloses the device has a first vapour source (vapour fluid 9 within tank 8) and a second vapour source (paragraph 0015, utilizing a second different tank with a different flavors) and at least one of the plurality of apertures in the nozzle is provided with vapour from the first source (as the first tank is provided to the plurality of apertures found in the nozzle) and at least one other of the plurality of apertures in the nozzle is provided with vapour from the second source (as vapour from the second applied tank would be applied to the apertures of the nozzle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacher in view of Esche (U.S. 2014/0026980).
With respect to claim 9, Lacher discloses a connection mechanism, but fails to disclose the connection mechanism comprises at least one magnetic portion to fit to a corresponding second part on a vapour dispensing device.
Esche, abstract and paragraphs 0004-0007, discloses the use of a magnet on the faucet as well as one with the nozzle (spreadhead) allowing for the two elements to be connected to one another, allowing for the spraying system to couple and decouple the nozzle as needed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a magnet coupling as disclosed by Esche into the system of Lacher, allowing the nozzle to couple and decoupler from the housing as desired with a simple removal of the nozzle from decoupling the two magnets from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights