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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on July 10, 2025 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
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 10-16, 18-20 and 22 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 10, the claim depends from itself, which is indefinite. For purposes of examining claim 10 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the claim depends from itself, which is indefinite. For purposes of examining claim 11 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from claim 10 (which provides antecedent basis for “the plurality of nozzles”).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 12 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 12 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 13 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 13 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 14 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 14 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Further, regarding claim 14, on lines 1-2, the recitation, “wherein when the slider mechanism is in a second position” is unclear. No “first position” of the slider mechanism has been properly introduced into the chain of claims (as interpreted) which includes claim 14. Thus, it is unclear whether or not claim 14 should necessarily be interpreted so as to require that the slider mechanism includes a “first position” and a “second position”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 15 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 15 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Further, regarding claim 15, on lines 1-2, the recitation, “wherein when the slider mechanism is in a third position” is unclear. No “first position” and/or no “second position” of the slider mechanism has been properly introduced into the chain of claims (as interpreted) which includes claim 15. Thus, it is unclear whether or not claim 15 should necessarily be interpreted so as to require that the slider mechanism includes a “first position”, a “second position” and a “third position”.
Further, regarding claim 15, on line 2, the recitation, “a second output passageway of the plurality of output passageways is open” is unclear. No “first output passageway” of the plurality of output passageways has been properly introduced into the chain of claims (as interpreted) which includes claim 15. Thus, it is unclear whether or not claim 15 should necessarily be interpreted so as to require a specific “first output passageway”, in addition to a specific “second output passageway”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 16 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 16 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, on line 3, the recitation, “the showerhead” lacks antecedent basis. Further, regarding claim 18, in light of the apparent claim dependency mistakes throughout the listing of claims, and in light of the fact that claim 18 depends from a later-listed claim (which is unusual), it appears that the dependency for claim 18 (depending from claim 19) is also an unintended mistake, even though such does not amount to indefiniteness, per se, in this instance. However, with this being said, claim 18 will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the claim depends from itself, which is indefinite. While the intended dependency for claim 19 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 19 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 19. While the intended dependency for claim 20 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 20 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is indefinite for depending from claim 10. While the intended dependency for claim 22 is unclear, for purposes of examining claim 22 on the merits, the claim will be interpreted so as to depend from independent claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 17, 21 and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach an ablutionary fitting including: a diverter handle comprising: a guide component including at least one guide track; and a slider mechanism including a sleeve, wherein the sleeve includes at least one post that engages the at least one guide track, together in combination with the other recited limitations and interrelated details as set forth in each of claims 1 and 17.
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach a system comprising: a diverter handle including: a guide component including a plurality of guide tracks; and a slider mechanism including a sleeve, wherein the sleeve includes a plurality of posts that each engage at least one of the plurality of guide tracks, together in combination with the other recited limitations and interrelated details as set forth in claim 9.
The closest prior art appears to be Foreign Patent Document CN-114377867-A, which shows a device having a very similar design, function and effect as compared to that required by each of (at least) claims 1, 9 and 17; including: a diverter handle (10) which has a guide component (20) with at least one guide track (21); a rotary cam (23) connected to the guide component; a handle output including at least two output passageways (121, 122); and a slider mechanism (30), which includes at least one post (31) that engages the at least one guide track. However, the slider mechanism shown in the aforementioned prior art document cannot reasonably be said to include a “sleeve”, wherein the sleeve includes the at least one post that engages the at least one guide track; since “sliding member 30” of the prior art document is shown to be in the shape of a flat, plate-like portion (33) having a pair of planar “card” elements (34) extending downwardly from the flat, plate-like portion, upon which the at least one post (31) is formed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Lin et al., Zhou et al., Rogers et al. and Lee et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights