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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drain inlet must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In line 1, “The invention relates to” should be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a. either with only the first water inlet, b. or with only the first water inlet and the second water inlet,” should read – (a) either with only the first water inlet; (b) or with only the first water inlet and the second water inlet; (c) or with only the first water inlet and the third water inlet --. Appropriate correction is required. (MPEP 608.01(m)).
In claim 5 and 9, the claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with vague language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clear and positively define the functional relationship of a limitation or specify conditions. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. For example, the phrases: “or able to be”, “after having been provided”, “is arranged” and “provided that”. In some instances, the language fails to establish how or where (i.e., structural relevance). Alternate active wording suggestions are: –configured to--, --adapted to--, coupled to--, or –include-. Additionally, the phrase: "to be" and/or “can be” are interpreted as vague. The inclusion of such subjective expressions introduces ambiguity by suggesting that the claimed element(s) to which they relate, are optional.
Since claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same objection.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for placing” at least in claims 1-3, “means for controlling” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 4, the word "means" is preceded by the word(s) “passage” and “comprises”, respectively to use a "means" clause to recite a claim element as a means for performing a specified function. However, since no function is specified by the word(s) preceding "means," it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Applicant asserts that the claim element “means” is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear whether the claim limitation is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function or it is unclear whether the corresponding structure is sufficiently disclosed in the written description of the specification. If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for” in accordance with these guidelines: the phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language and the phrase must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Show that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function which would preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181. Since claims 2-3, and 5-13 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same rejection.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4,576,202 A to Knapp.
Regarding claim 1, Knapp discloses a four-way water mixer tap 10 comprising a first water inlet 224, a second water inlet 225, a third water inlet 226 and a single water outlet 227, wherein the mixer tap has passage means for placing the single water outlet in fluid communication: a. either with only the first water inlet, b. or with only the first water inlet and the second water inlet, c. or with only the first water inlet and the third water inlet (fig 13-16).
Regarding claim 2, Knapp further discloses the single water outlet 126 in fluid communication with only the second water inlet 124 and the third water inlet 125 ([col. 5, lines 55-57]; fig 13,15).
Regarding claim 4, Knapp further a water flow at the single water outlet, said control means 30 being able to be activated by a user via lever 14 ([col. 3, lines 40-47]; fig 13-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN 114198536 A to Zhejiang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhejiang discloses a four-way water mixer tap comprising a first water inlet 120, a second water inlet 110, a third water inlet 150 and a single water outlet 160, wherein the mixer tap has passage means for placing the single water outlet in fluid communication: a. either with only the first water inlet, b. or with only the first water inlet and the second water inlet, c. or with only the first water inlet and the third water inlet (fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, Zhejiang further discloses the passage means for placing the single water outlet in fluid communication with only the second water inlet or with only the third water inlet (fig 5-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 10 2007 048026 B4 to IMST.
Regarding claim 1, IMST discloses a four-way water mixer tap comprising a first water inlet 1, a second water inlet 2, a third water inlet 3 and a single water outlet 4, wherein the mixer tap has passage means for placing the single water outlet in fluid communication: a. either with only the first water inlet (fig 3), b. or with only the first water inlet and the second water inlet [para 0051], c. or with only the first water inlet and the third water inlet (fig 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, IMST further discloses the passage means for placing the single water outlet in fluid communication with only the second water inlet or with only the third water inlet (fig 6 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. More specifically, EP 3467358 B1 to Vorel is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a directional valve 1 for temperature-dependent water management, in a sanitary facility, a housing 2, a housing inlet 3 for mixed water, at least two housing outlets 5,6, and a first switching mechanism 8,16.
PNG
media_image4.png
670
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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, David Angwin can be reached 571-270-3735. 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights