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 II, claims 9-15 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/25.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would like to point out that a foreign search report has been done for this application and that the applicant has not provided this or the references associated with it. The examiner also points out that the applicant has elected apparatus claims, but has included many methods of making the apparatus parts, but these are just product-by-process limitations and carry little to no patentable weight in apparatus claims (see claim rejections below for explanation).
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 a control head and a free handle body (both in claim 11) and (an outer alloy layer covering an outer side of another liner(?) or is this the same liner(?) as in claim 15 “a liner” is introduced but there is already “a liner” in claim 9 and also is unclear if metallurgical bonding surface of claim 9 is to this outer alloy layer or to the liner (see 112 rejections below)) 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied language “Provided is”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: See drawing objections above and 112 rejections below for specification deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 15 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. In claim 11, a control head and a free handle body is not shown in the drawings and is not described in the specification as to be clear and definite as is the control head the same as the valve core? In claim 15, is an outer alloy layer covering an outer side of another liner(?) or is this the same liner(?) as in claim 15 “a liner” is introduced but there is already “a liner” in claim 9? It is also unclear if metallurgical bonding surface of claim 9 is to this outer alloy layer or to the liner? The specification is unclear and indefinite as to this and an outer alloy layer is not even shown in the drawings thus impossible to even examine claim 15 properly.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13-15, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2,219,471 in view of Gossing et al. US 10,046,385.
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses a faucet comprising a metal liner 20 (made of metal) and a metal valve body 40 that covers the metal liner, wherein an outer surface of the metal liner and a corresponding inner surface of the metal valve body constitute a metallurgical bonding interface (p. 2, lines 42-47, “welded or fused”); the metal valve body comprises a water inlet valve body (part of valve body connected to water supply pipe 44 at 43) and a water outlet valve body (at 45 and 47) that are integrally formed; an end of the water inlet valve body that is away from the water outlet valve body is configured for support positioning and water intake (the end at 43 provides support positioning as rigidly connected to the water supply pipe 44 and water intake from the water supply pipe 44) ; the water outlet valve body is in a bent connection with the water inlet valve body (45 and 47 are bent relative to the water inlet valve body at 43); the metal liner comprises a water inlet pipe section (at 23) and a water outlet pipe section (at 27) that are integrally formed (may be seen as integrally formed with or without valve seat 11 as with it is cast into the metal liner so is integrally formed); and the water inlet pipe section is arranged corresponding to a junction between the water inlet valve body and the water outlet valve body (water inlet pipe section at 21 is arranged corresponding to a junction between the water inlet valve body and the water outlet valve body that is the junction of 43 and 45), and the water outlet pipe section is arranged corresponding to the water outlet valve body (27 is arranged in part of the water outlet valve body 45).
Davis discloses die casting but lacks mentioning the product-by-process of the die casting being high pressure. Gossing specifically discloses high pressure die casting of a faucet (col. 8, lines 15-16).
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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use high-pressure die casting as disclosed by Gossing to produce the metal valve body as a matter of simple substitution of producing the metal valve body.
Davis inherently has a shear strength of the metallurgical bonding interface since it is already welded or fused but lacks specifically mentioning that it is not less than 30 Mpa. The examiner points out that this also may be seen as inherent as welding and fusing provide very strong connections that would inherently be no less than 30Mpa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shear strength of the metallurgical bonding interface of Davis to be not less than 30 Mpa as a matter of simple substitution of shear strength provided by the welding and/or fusing already provided and/or “obvious to try” making a shear strength of not less than 30 Mpa of the welding and/or fusing to make sure that the interface does come loose.
Regarding claim 11, as understood, Davis discloses a valve core and a valve handle (at 50), wherein the valve core is arranged at the water inlet pipe section (Figs. 1-2) and is hermetically connected to the metal liner (Figs. 1-2); and the valve handle comprises a control head that penetrates through the water inlet valve body and is connected to the valve core, and a free handle body connected to the control head (seen as the connection between 50 and the valve body).
Regarding claim 13, Davis lacks a mention of a wall thickness of the liner so lacks it being 0.5 mm to 2 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wall thickness of the liner to be 0.5 mm to 2 mm as a matter of simple substitution of wall thicknesses of the liner and/or “obvious to try” a wall thickness of the liner to be 0.5 mm to 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success as this would provide a normal sized faucet to fit a sink.
Regarding claim 14, Davis discloses a material of the liner comprises stainless steel (the stainless steel insert is part of the liner).
Regarding claim 15, Davis discloses the faucet comprises a liner (see 112 rejection above but this is seen as the same liner as in claim 9) but lacks an outer alloy layer covering an outer side of the liner; and the outer alloy layer is produced as follows: injecting a liner filler into a cavity, allowing forming of the liner filler, injecting a molten or semi-molten alloy, and conducting high-pressure die casting, such that the alloy wraps the outer side of the liner.
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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an outer alloy layer covering an outer side of the liner of Davis as “obvious to try” an outer alloy layer with a reasonable expectation of success as this would protect the liner and the method of production is product-by-process which is a known method.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2,219,471 in view of Gossing et al. US 10,046,385 in view of Wildfang US 2009/0007977.
Regarding claim 10, Davis lacks a valve nozzle, wherein the valve nozzle is removably connected to an end of the water outlet valve body that is away from the water inlet valve body through a sealing ring. Wildfang discloses a valve nozzle 7, wherein the valve nozzle is removably connected to an end of the water outlet valve body that is away from the water inlet valve body through a sealing ring 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve nozzle and sealing ring as disclosed by Woodford as a valve nozzle for the water outlet valve body of Davis to provide an outlet nozzle that won’t leak due to sealing and/or is easily cleanable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2,219,471 in view of Gossing et al. US 10,046,385 in view of Woodford US 3,414,001.
Regarding claim 10, Davis lacks a valve nozzle, wherein the valve nozzle is removably connected to an end of the water outlet valve body that is away from the water inlet valve body through a sealing ring. Woodford discloses a valve nozzle 40, wherein the valve nozzle is removably connected to an end of the water outlet valve body that is away from the water inlet valve body through a sealing ring 44. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve nozzle and sealing ring as disclosed by Woodford as a valve nozzle for the water outlet valve body of Davis to provide anti-siphoning of the faucet.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2,219,471 in view of Gossing et al. US 10,046,385 in view of Yang US 6,152,180.
Regarding claim 12, Davis lacks a surface of the metal valve body is treated through electroplating or wire drawing. Yang discloses electroplating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the surface of Davis’ metal valve body by electroplating as disclosed by Yang in order to protect the surface and/or prevent the surface of the valve body “from getting rust”.
Regarding claim 14, Davis lacks a mention of the material of the liner that is not the stainless steel insert. Yang discloses a copper valve body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material of the liner (that is without the insert) of copper as a matter of simple substitution of liner materials to provide a material that is durable and has natural antibacterial properties that is well known in use with faucets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liszak discloses faucet made by die casting. Jagtap and Perla disclose casting a faucet with a liner. Kuo discloses electroplating and a removable valve nozzle with a seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921