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 .
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 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:
biasing member in claims 5-7, 10, 12, and 17. Par. 52
rotation limiting feature in claims 19-20. Par. 47
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the second support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathews (6,128,792).
Regarding claim 1, Mathews discloses a variable flow control nozzle for a pool or spa (abstract), wherein the variable flow control nozzle comprises means for generating a jet of water (item 28), wherein the variable flow control nozzle is self-adjusting to control the jet of water via sliding or linear movement (figure 2, movement of portion is linear or sliding, col. 3, lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 2, Mathews discloses wherein the variable flow control nozzle is self- adjusting based on an input flow rate of water to the variable flow control nozzle (col. 3, lines 11-22).
Regarding claims 3, Mathews further discloses wherein the variable flow control nozzle comprises: a housing (item 12) defining an internal passage and a center support (any supporting surfaces of 12 and related housing components that support the center of the system) within the internal passage (central portion of 12); and a nozzle face (any face of 14, 16, and 28) at least partially within the internal passage and arranged about the center support (at least some of the surfaces of 14/16/28 are about the center supports), wherein the nozzle face is self-adjusting.
Regarding claim 4, Mathews further discloses wherein, at a minimal flow rate (i.e. a trickle), the nozzle face is within the housing (capable of, at a minimal trickle nozzle would be substantially within the housing).
Regarding claim 5, Mathews further discloses further comprising a biasing member (item 28) applying a biasing force to a nozzle assembly of the variable flow control nozzle.
Regarding claims 6-7, Mathews further discloses wherein the biasing member biases the nozzle assembly to a small opening state/minimal opening area (capable of, depending on pressure of system).
Regarding claims 9-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, the limitations of these claims are addressed above. It is noted that a large opening state would be under full water pressure and shown in figure 2.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Mathews further discloses a nozzle face (faces of nozzle assembly) and a connecting portion (item 16), wherein the nozzle face is on a first side of the center support (downstream side) and the connecting portion is on a second side of the second (center) support (upstream side).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Mathews further discloses a rotation limiting feature (threads connecting 12 to 11) configured to limit or define a range of rotation of the housing and prevents 180 degree rotation of the housing in which the inlet and outlet would be reversed (capable of).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxwell (2,229,467).
Regarding claim 1, Maxwell discloses a variable flow control nozzle for a pool or spa (capable of), wherein the variable flow control nozzle comprises means for generating a jet of water (items 15 and 20), wherein the variable flow control nozzle is self-adjusting to control the jet of water via sliding or linear movement (figure 1 shows linear movement, self-adjusting via spring 20 which is set by 13).
Regarding claim 2, Maxwell discloses wherein the variable flow control nozzle is self- adjusting based on an input flow rate of water to the variable flow control nozzle (input via 2 can change force which will change what spring force adjusts to opening).
Regarding claims 3, Maxwell further discloses wherein the variable flow control nozzle comprises: a housing (items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13) defining an internal passage (flow passages therein) and a center support (items 7, 11, and 13 may constitute the center support) within the internal passage (central portion of 12); and a nozzle face (face of 15) at least partially within the internal passage and arranged about the center support (item 15 is within internal passage and about support components), wherein the nozzle face is self-adjusting.
Regarding claim 4, Maxwell further discloses wherein, at a minimal flow rate (i.e. a trickle), the nozzle face is within the housing (capable of, at a minimal trickle nozzle would be substantially within the housing).
Regarding claim 5, Maxwell further discloses further comprising a biasing member (item 20) applying a biasing force to a nozzle assembly of the variable flow control nozzle.
Regarding claims 6-7, Maxwell further discloses wherein the biasing member biases the nozzle assembly to a small opening state/minimal opening area (capable of, depending on pressure of system).
Regarding claim 9, Maxwell discloses a variable flow control nozzle comprising a housing (items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14) with a center support (items 7, 11, 13, 14) and a nozzle assembly (item 15, 17, 21, 22) on either side of the center support along a flow path through the variable flow control nozzle, wherein the nozzle assembly is self-adjusting (via spring 20).
Regarding claim 10, Maxwell further discloses wherein the variable flow control nozzle is self- adjusting between a large opening state and a small opening state (depending on flow, opening of nozzle will adjust), wherein a size of an opening area of the variable flow control nozzle in the large opening state is greater than the size of the opening area in the small opening state (max vs minimum openings based on spring, threaded placement, and pressure), and wherein the variable flow control nozzle comprises a biasing member (item 20) biasing the variable flow control nozzle to the small opening state (under particular pressure the biasing member will keep the nozzle opening at specific openings).
Regarding claim 11, Maxwell further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is self-adjusting between a large opening state and a small opening state, and wherein, in the small opening state, a nozzle face of the nozzle assembly is within the housing (15 would be within housing at early pressure levels).
Regarding claim 12, Maxwell further discloses further comprising a biasing member (item 20) applying a biasing force to the nozzle assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Maxwell further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly comprises a nozzle face (face of 15) and a connecting portion (items 17 to 21), wherein the nozzle face is on a first side of the center support and the connecting portion is on a second side of the second support (portions of center support are in between 15 and 21).
Regarding claim 14, Maxwell further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is self-adjusting via sliding or linear movement (see movement in figure 1).
Claims 15-18 are disclosed by Maxwell in the citations above.
Regarding claim 19, Maxwell discloses a rotation limiting feature (item 13 and frictional/assembly of components, alternatively threads of 7 to 6 to 1 would limit rotation/ further alternatively threads of 1 to 2) configured to limit and/or define a range of rotation of the housing.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews in view of Hagaman (2010/0155497).
Regarding claim 8, Mathews teaches a system that would be part of a pool or sauna which would generally be considered to utilize known pool components such as an erosion tab feeder, a skimmer, or a centrifugal filter but does not explicitly disclose this.
Firstly, the examiner takes official notice that these components are well known and constitute common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, Hagaman explicitly teaches using a similar nozzle in the same field of endeavor with filters (par. 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the nozzles within a filter system to ensure that the pool or sauna remained clean for multiple uses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights