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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, line 2 “wherein a least one recess” should likely read “wherein at least one recess”.
In Claim 4, line 2 “the protrusions” should likely read “the plural protrusions.
In Claim 7, line 2 “the two valve seats are respectively connected to two ends of the connecting pipe” should likely read “the two valve seats are respectively each connected to one of two ends of the connecting pipe”.
In Claim 7, line 3 “the covering member” should likely read “the at least one covering member”.
In Claim 7, line 3 “is set to be two corresponding to the two valve seats” should likely read “is set to be two, the two covering members corresponding to the two valve seats”.
In Claim 8, line 2 “each valve seat” should likely read “each valve seat of the two valve seats”.
In Claim 8, line 4 ” two ends of the central flow channel are respectively in communication with the two accommodating grooves of the valve seats” should likely read “two ends of the central flow channel are respectively in communication with the accommodating groove of each valve seat of the valve seats”.
In Claim 8, line 7 and 8 (two instances) “each internal flow channel” should likely read “each internal flow channel of the two internal flow channels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Liautaud (US 3998240).
Regarding Claim 1, Liautaud discloses a faucet base (10 generally of Figure 1; Figure 5). The faucet base comprising:
a base body (see Annotated Figure A) comprising a connecting pipe (see Annotated Figure A) and at least one valve seat (47 and 48; Figure 5) connecting to each other (see Annotated Figure A);
the base body (see Annotated Figure A) includes a flow channel (see Annotated Figure A) disposed in the base body (see Annotated Figure A), wherein the flow channel has at least one inlet (two inlets; one each from 50 and 51) and an outlet (61);
the at least one valve seat (47 or 48) has an accommodating portion (see Annotated Figure A), a mounting portion (see Annotated Figure A), and a base portion (see Annotated Figure A), wherein the accommodating portion is connected to the mounting portion and the connecting pipe (see Annotated Figure A), and the mounting portion is connected to the accommodating portion and the base portion (see Annotated Figure A);
the at least one inlet of the flow channel (50 or 51) is located at the base portion (see Annotated Figure A), and the outlet of the flow channel is located at the connecting pipe (see Annotated Figure A to 61);
the mounting portion has a coupling structure (at least the threads which engage with the covering member 33); and at least one covering member (33), covering the coupling structure of the mounting portion (Figure 5) and the base portion (Figure 5) so as to prevent the at least one covering member from rotating relative to the base portion (Col 4, lines 11-12),
but fails to expressly disclose where the at least one covering member is made of plastic by injection molding.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the covering member of Liautaud to be made from plastic since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
The limitation “made of plastic by injection molding” renders this claim a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A - Liautaud
Regarding Claim 2, Liautaud discloses where an outer diameter of the mounting portion (see Annotated Figure A) of the base body is greater than an outer diameter of the base portion (see Annotated Figure A);
the base body (see Annotated Figure A) has an annular groove (the recessed portion of the start of the thread) recessed from a portion of the mounting portion that connects to the base portion (the outer surface or raised portion of the thread);
the coupling structure (at least the threads which engage with the covering member 33) comprises at least one protrusion (the raised portion of the threads), wherein the at least one protrusion (the raised portion of the threads) is connected to at least one of two side walls of the annular groove or a groove bottom of the annular groove (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Liautaud discloses where a portion of the at least one covering member that fills the annular groove is defined as a filling block (Figure 5; Annotated Figure A), wherein at least one recess of the filling block is formed at a location corresponding to the at least one protrusion (Figure 5); another portion of the at least one covering member covering the base portion is defined as a threaded section (Figure 5), wherein the threaded section is connected to the filling block (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Liautaud discloses where the at least one protrusion (the raised portion of the threads) is connected to the two side walls of the annular groove (the recessed portion of the start of the thread);
a portion of the at least one covering member that fills the annular groove is defined as a filling block (Figure 5), and another portion of the at least one covering member that covers the base portion is defined as a threaded section (Figure 5), wherein the threaded section is connected to the filling block (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Liautaud discloses where a number of the at least one protrusion is plural (Figure 5; as each round of the protruding thread forms another protrusion in the axial direction of the base body).
Regarding Claim 7, Liautaud discloses where a number of the at least one valve seat is two (Figure 5; at 47 and 48);
the two valve seats are respectively connected to two ends of the connecting pipe of the base body (see Annotated Figure A);
a number of the covering member is set to be two corresponding to the two valve seats (see Annotated Figure A at 15 and 16 generally).
Regarding Claim 8, Liautaud discloses where an accommodating groove (43 and 44) is disposed in the accommodating portion of each valve seat (Figure 5); the flow channel is divided into a central flow channel and two internal flow channels (between the accommodating grooves as seen in Figure 5); the central flow channel is formed in the connecting pipe (see Annotated Figure A); the outlet is in communication with the central flow channel (at 61); two ends of the central flow channel are respectively in communication with the two accommodating grooves of the valve seats (see Annotated Figure A and Figure 5; at 43 and 44); a number of the at least one inlet is two (from 50 and 51), wherein the two inlets are respectively located at the two base portions (see Annotated Figure A); each internal flow channel is formed in each valve seat (see Annotated Figure A); each internal flow channel is in communication with each accommodating groove and each inlet (see Annotated Figure A).
Regarding Claim 9, Liautaud discloses where at least one metal film (Col 4, lines 7-12); the at least one metal film covers an outer surface of the at least one covering member (by forming the covering member, the metal film also covers and outer surface as seen in Figure 5), and a surface of the at least one metal film has a threaded structure (Figure 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights