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, Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 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.
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 limitations are: “cleaning module” in claim 1 and “coupling mechanism” in claim 2 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder “module” and “mechanism” that is coupled with functional language “cleaning” and “coupling” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In light of the specification, the claim limitation “cleaning module” has been interpreted as “one or more projectiles may take the form of a silicone brush.”
In light of the specification, the claim limitation “coupling mechansim” has been interpreted as “one or more electrical terminals.”
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 1-10 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.
The limitation “extend outward and retract inward” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. The term “outward” and “inward” are relative directional terms for which the claim does not establish a sufficiently clear reference point, direction, or spatial frame of reference. It is unclear from the claim what constitutes movement “outward” relative to what structure or reference location, and correspondingly what constitutes movement “inward.” Because the claim does not identify the reference point or spatial relationship from which “outward” and “inward” are to be determined, the metes and bounds of the claimed movement are not reasonably ascertainable. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty what range or direction of movement falls within the scope of the claim.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 112(b) because of dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200124421 A1) in view of Hanna et al. (US 2014/0263760 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a faucet assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: a spray head (100) having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 6a); a hose (310) coupled to the spray head (100) and configured to deliver fluid to the spray head, wherein the spray head and the hose are configured to extend outward and retract inward (“The hose 310 allows the functional sink head module to be extended so that it can be used by pulling it to a desired distance”); a cleaning module (800) configured to remove debris and particulates from kitchenware; a connector (400) coupled to the spray head and configured to removably couple the spray head to the cleaning module (Fig. 1); and an actuating mechanism configured to operate the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles, the actuating mechanism comprising a motor (600) configured to drive movement of the cleaning module through the connector (400 and Fig. 2).
Lee does not disclose that the plurality of nozzles including a first plurality of nozzles and a second plurality of nozzles, the first plurality of nozzles configured to perform a first fluid dispersal operation , the second plurality of nozzles configured to perform a second fluid dispersal operation; and an actuating mechanism configured to operate the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles.
Hanna teaches a spray head comprising a first plurality of nozzles and a second plurality of nozzles (2/3), the first plurality of nozzles (2) configured to perform a first fluid dispersal operation (central) , the second plurality of nozzles (3) configured to perform a second fluid dispersal operation (outer ring); and an actuating mechanism (Par. [0031]) configured to operate the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray head of Lee, by incorporating a first plurality of nozzles and a second plurality of nozzles (2/3) and electrical switch as taught by Hanna, for the benefit of providing both a high velocity spray from the head portion and the spray holes surround the spray nozzles. The spray holes are configured to direct a lower velocity curtain of water that substantially contains the high velocity spray when the spray holes and spray nozzles are in fluid communication with the supply of fluid (Par. [0006]).
With regard to claim 2, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that a coupling mechanism (200) positioned between the spray head (100)and the hose (310), wherein the spray head (100) is configured to receive fluid through the coupling mechanism from the hose (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 3, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Lee further discloses that the coupling mechanism (200) comprises one or more electrical terminals (210) for supplying electricity to the spray head (100) and the actuating mechanism (600, Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 4, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hanna further discloses that the first fluid dispersal operation and the second fluid dispersal operation comprise one of an aerated stream, a laminar stream, and a spray stream (“The sprayer 4 is also configured such that the spray nozzles 3 create a more forceful, higher velocity fluid flow in the form of a series of streams or `jets` of water”, see Par. [0016 and 0028]).
With regard to claim 5, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hanna further discloses that the first plurality of nozzles (2) are positioned proximal an outer circumference of the spray head and the second plurality of nozzles (3) are positioned distal the outer circumference of the spray head (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 6, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the connector (400) is configured to magnetically couple the spray head to the cleaning module (405/805).
With regard to claim 7, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee further discloses that the cleaning module (800) comprises a receiving body including an inlet (Fig. 6b) for coupling the receiving body to the connector (400), the cleaning module (800) further comprising one or more projectiles (“a brush, a scrubber, a brush, a mesh, a scrubber”) to facilitate debris and particulate removal from kitchenware.
With regard to claim 8, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Lee further discloses that the one or more projectiles (“a brush, a scrubber, a brush, a mesh, a scrubber”) are positioned proximate one or more openings in the receiving body, the receiving body comprising one or more fluid jets configured to disperse fluid through the one or more openings and onto the one or more projectiles during operation of the cleaning module (Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 9, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee in view of Hanna further discloses that the actuating mechanism comprises at least one controller (“electrical switch” taught by Hanna) for operating at least one of the first plurality of nozzles, the second plurality of nozzles (Par. [0031] in Hanna), and the motor (600 in Lee).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hanna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rundzaitis (US 4,657,185).
With regard to claim 10, the faucet assembly of Lee as modified by Hanna discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They are silent to disclose that the spray head further comprises a side sprayer configured to disperse steam through an outlet defined in the spray head.
Rundzaitis teaches a sprayer configured to disperse steam through an outlet defined in the spray head (Col. 1 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray head of Lee, by forming the sprayer with a steam-like mist spray as taught by Rundzaitis, for the benefit of converting the shower into the sauna (Col. 1 line 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights