DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davidson (US 9243756);
Claim(s) 3, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claim 1, 7, 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Parsons (US 8276878);
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claim 1, 7, 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Pitsch (US 2017/0252755);
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claim 1, 7, 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Pitsch (US 2017/0252755);
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson as applied to claim 1 and 19 above.
Davidson discloses in claim 1: A faucet assembly (16 figure 2) comprising: a faucet body (20/22) comprising: a fluid inlet (at 26) configured to fluidly connect to a mixing valve (38 figure 1) of a fluid source (12/14 hot and cold water) and receive fluid from the fluid source by way of the mixing valve (via 24); a fluid flow path (24) within the faucet body fluidly connected to the fluid inlet and configured to receive fluid from the fluid inlet (see figure 1 and 2); and a spray head (30 figure 4) comprising one or more fluid outlets (32/34 based on the spray of the surrounding output 34) fluidly connected to the fluid flow path and configured (via diverter valve) to dispense fluid out of the faucet body (and see Col 4 ln 40-60); and a temperature control system (50/52/38 figures 2, 3 and 4) positioned on the faucet body proximate to the spray head (see figures 2, 4-8), the temperature control system comprising: a printed circuit board (136 and see Col 7 ln 40-47); one or more controls (touch/slide controls at 71) disposed on the printed circuit board and configured to receive a user input (via UI 50) comprising a user's desired fluid temperature (via 72a/92a for temperature, and 72b/92b for flow rate Col 8 ln 32-55); one or more lights (LED’s 132) disposed on the printed circuit board and configured to emit light based on the user input (red for hot, blue for cold); and one or more circuit traces (124, best seen in figure 10) disposed on the printed circuit board (per Col 7 ln 28-40) and configured to electronically connect to the mixing valve (via controller 52, figure 3), the one or more controls, and the one or more lights (as discussed); wherein, upon receiving the user input, the one or more controls are configured to transmit a signal to the mixing valve via the one or more circuit traces to cause the mixing valve to control a temperature of the fluid based on the user's desired fluid temperature (Col 8 ln 32-55.)
Davidson discloses in claim 2: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more controls of the temperature control system comprise one or more capacitive touch sensors (input touch buttons 74, 76, 78 or touch sliders 72a, 72b; see Col 9 ln 45-55.)
Davidson discloses in claim 3: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more controls of the temperature control system comprise one or more sensors; Davidson does not disclose; although Parsons teaches: using one or more pressure sensors (412 figure 10, and where the actuator sensor may be a electromagnetic sensor, capacitive sensor, Hall effect sensor, optical sensor, or pressure transducer (sensor), or any other type, Col 15 ln 57-63 for the purpose of providing user interface actuation via an actuation controller sensor);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Parsons, for that of Davidson, using one or more pressure sensors as taught in Davidson, all for the purpose of providing user interface actuation via an actuation controller sensor.
Davidson discloses in claim 4: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more controls of the temperature control system comprise one or more push buttons (buttons 74, 76, 78 must be pushed to actuate, Col 9 ln 43-54.)
Davidson discloses in claim 5: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more controls of the temperature control system are arranged in a linear pattern or a circular pattern (the controls are arranged linearly see 100a,b figures 4-7, the use of “or” indicating alternative grouping under MPEP 2131.)
Davidson discloses in claim 7: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the faucet assembly is configured to provide a plurality of spray modes (see figures 5-7 and where as previously discussed the modes can be related to the flow amount setting, the various diverter outlets, or temperature levels.)
Davidson discloses in claims 8 and 13: wherein the faucet body further comprises a spray mode control (toggle 68 and user control panel 71, figure 4) comprising one or more spray mode regions (32/34 outlet modes), wherein each spray mode region is associated with a spray mode of the plurality of spray modes (i.e. the user can create plurality of spray modes in as much as the temperature and flow rate along with the outlets through the spay region 34 is adjustable for flow rate and temperature), and wherein each spray mode region is configured to: receive a spray mode input from the user (i.e. toggle to 34, flow rate level and temperature level); and control a flow of fluid through the one or more fluid outlets in order to initiate the spray mode associated with the spray mode region (34.)
Davidson discloses in claim 9 and 14: does not disclose, although Pitch teaches: wherein the spray mode control comprises at least four spray mode regions (selector has four flow selector valves to provide four flow paths for four sprayer modes including aerator path, showering sprayer path, misting sprayer path, jet sprayer path, ph 0016, provided for the purpose of user selective fluid flow dispersion in the faucet/sink);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Pitch for that of Davidson, at least four spray mode regions with a selector that can provide for control of four flow selector valves to and control as taught in Pitch four flow paths for four sprayer modes including aerator path, showering sprayer path, misting sprayer path, jet sprayer path as taught in Pitch, and all provided for the purpose of user selective fluid flow dispersion in the faucet/sink.
Davidson discloses in claim 10 and 15: wherein the spray mode control is a push button (toggle push button 68.)
Davidson discloses in claim 11 and 16: wherein the spray mode control is a capacitive touch sensor (the capacitive touch sensor control for the flow and temperature.) If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Davidson does not disclose: a diverter valve spray mode control which is capacitive touch sensing; considering that Davidson teaches: using a solenoid valve for the diverter valve (thus making it electronically controlled, Col 4 ln 55-60); and considering that Davidson also teaches using capacitive touch for the flow rate, temperature settings and on/off functions of the mixing valves (via the user interface 50 as seen in figure 3 and 4 for the purpose of a single panel fluid control for all of the fluid flow control functions;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as suggested in Davidson, making the diverter valve a spray mode control via capacitive touch as discussed above, all for the purpose of for example, providing a single user interface control panel for all of the fluid flow control functions.
Davidson discloses in claim 12 and 17: the spray mode control is a [toggle button]; Davidson does not disclose; although Parsons teaches: using one or more pressure sensors (412 figure 10, and where the actuator sensor may be a electromagnetic sensor, capacitive sensor, Hall effect sensor, optical sensor, or pressure transducer (sensor), or any other type, Col 15 ln 57-63 for the purpose of providing for example, user interface actuation via an actuation controller sensor for the spray mode);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Parsons, for that of Davidson, using one or more pressure sensors as taught in Davidson, all for the purpose of providing for example, user interface actuation via an actuation controller sensor for the spray mode.
Davidson discloses in claim 18: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the spray head is configured to pull away from the spout (Col 5 ln 35-41.)
Davidson discloses in claim 19: The faucet assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more lights (as discussed in Col 8 ln 10-31 LED lights 132/134 can be blue and red in alternating arrangement or can be laterally spaced to provide different levels of intensity of color for representing the temperature (red hot), blue cold, and varying combinations there between, where the colors can be mixed to provide a range of color the low spectrum of 380 to 500 nm for blue and the upper end of 620 to 750 nm for red) are configured to emit light in a first wavelength range if the user's desired fluid temperature is within a first temperature range (mostly if not all red which is in the wavelength range of 620-750 nm) and are configured to emit light in a second wavelength range (mostly if not all blue led’s in the range of 350 to 500 nm) if the user's desired fluid temperature is within a second temperature range (or a mix of the led’s color there between as discussed.)
Davidson discloses in claim 20: The faucet assembly of claim 19, wherein the first wavelength range is between [620] to 750 nm (this is red wavelength); but Davidson does not disclose: the first wavelength of between 500-750 nm (this is green to red wavelengths); but considering that Davidson recites: the above ranges Col 8 ln 10-31; and that Davidson suggests varying the colors in Col 9 ln 65- Col 10 ln 6); and that one of ordinary skill in the art of user interface would: provide an additional color of green (to span between the red and blue wavelengths, with green having a wavelength of about 495 to 570 nm) so as to provide a full range of color combinations (red blue green 380 to 750 nm), all for the purpose of providing for example an accurate intuitive temperature indication of the fluid across the full visual color range (of red green blue);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Davidson and/or suggested therein, the first wavelength range of between 500 and 750 nm, by providing an additional color of green so as to span between the red and blue wavelengths of Davidson, where green has a wavelength of about 495 to 570 nm, for the purpose of providing for example, a full range of color combinations, and accurate intuitive temperature indication of the fluid across the full visual color range.
Davidson discloses in claim 21: The faucet assembly of claim 19, wherein the second wavelength range is 350-500 nm (the blue spectrum including a turquoise blue/green.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753