Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
Note: The amended Claims 1, 16, and 17 broaden the claim scope beyond the original presentation of “a portable, personal apparatus for treating drinking water”. This amendment introduced new grounds for further search and/or consideration
Claim Interpretation
Note: Applicant argues “The currently pending application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/380228, which was filed September 4, 2010” (See Remarks p 2 ¶ 2).
MPEP 2152.01: As under pre-AIA law, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis.
Claim 1 recites “…a top end of the cartridge comprising a top mesh layer and covering a top
opening of the filter; and
a bottom end of the cartridge comprising a bottom mesh layer and covering
a bottom opening of the filter,
wherein a porosity of the top mesh layer is larger than a porosity of the
bottom mesh layer.”
Examiner notes there may be a difference of interpretation in the definition of “porosity”.
61/380228 support for “porosity”:
P 9 ¶ 2-3:
“Filter Pad
A non-limiting embodiment of the present invention includes the use of a filter pad with porosity ranging between 50µm - 500µm to cover the bottom opening of filter housing.
Venting Mesh
In a non-limiting embodiment of the present invention, the top opening of the filter housing is covered by a mesh with porosity between 50µm - 1000µm
Filter Bag
In a second non-limiting embodiment, the filter media may be contained within a separate filter bag that may comprise a rigid ring sewn into a mesh bag with a porosity between 100µm and 1000µm”
This “porosity” seems to mean the pore size.
Fig. 9 shows an embodiment combining bag 24 as the bottom layer and filter screen 25 at the top. It is unclear whether filter screen 25 is synonymous with Venting Mesh, but if so, the pore sizes of the top layer (porosity between 50µm - 1000µm) are not greater than that of the bottom layer, the bag (100µm - 1000µm)
Alternatively,
P 11 last ¶: “The KDF-55, KDF-85, ion exchange resins, and zeolite in the aforementioned filter media composition may be enclosed in a water-permeable pouch, sachet, bag, or sock that is strategically placed either in a layer or in a tubular or essentially spherical shape … The shape of the pouch, sachet, bag, or sock is designed to permit an optimized balance between contaminant remediation efficiency, flow rate, axial flow vs radial flow characteristics, etc. … and the water permeability is dictated by the porosity of the cloth or membrane.”
This “porosity” seems to mean the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume of the material, a definition of porosity known to dictate permeability.
This supports optimizing shape to meet design needs balancing at least efficiency and flow rate, but does not suggest a larger top porosity in comparison to the bottom porosity of the sock.
However, the 09/08/2021 disclosure of 17/469046 supports:
Fig. 1 Element 8 and 7
[0065]: “…filter pad 8 is included with porosity ranging from approximately 50 µm to approximately 500 µm to cover the bottom opening of filter housing 27.”
[0040]: “divider 7 is configured to allow air trapped within chamber 12 to vent and escape outside filter 2”
[0067]: “top opening of filter housing 27 is covered by a mesh with porosity from approximately 50 µm to approximately 2000 µm, to allow air within the filter to
escape during filtration”
This supports a pore size “porosity” of the top mesh being larger than the “porosity” filter pad mesh layer on the bottom.
Examiner requests clarification on the interpretation of “porosity” in order to establish the priority date for claim 1.
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner here interprets “porosity” as either pore size or percent void volume.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-17,19, and 21-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wise (US 4,605,499). Figure 1 below is provided for convenience.
Figure 1. Annotated Wise Fig. 13 denoting the visual disparity in pore sizes
PNG
media_image1.png
740
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Wise teaches an apparatus for treating water (“water filter that is suited for filtering small quantities of drinking water”, Abstract), comprising: a filter housing (Fig. 13 Element 51) containing a filter (Fig. 13 Element 50),
wherein the filter comprises: a cartridge (“bowl 55 … having a number of small holes 56 …that filtered water can pass through the holes”, Col 5 lines 3-18); a filtration media disposed inside the cartridge (“shallow hemispheric bowl 55 containing granular filter medium 21”, Col 5 ln 6-7); a top end of the cartridge comprising a top mesh layer and covering a top opening of the filter (“An upper layer 51 of containing fabric encloses the filter medium from the upper side”, Col 5 ln 10-11);
Another embodiment of Wise teaches a filter unit (30), a top mesh layer (fabric 27) covering a top opening of the filter (filter unit 30) and a bottom mesh layer (fabric 26) covering a bottom opening of the filter (“In the embodiment 30 according to FIG. 6, the filter unit 30 consists of a circular piece of containing fabric 22 and 26 containing granulated filter medium 21. Another separate piece of containing fabric 27, cut as a coordinated substantially circular piece of fabric 27 is attached, at the edges. 27a, to the inside of the skirt 22 by sewing, adhesive, cementing or any other suitable process, so that the filter medium 21 is contained between the two layers of fabric 26 and 27. The fabric 26 and 27 may be a coarse woven fabric such as gauze, cheese cloth”, Col 4 ln 22-32)
While Wise does not quantitatively compare the top mesh to the bottom, Wise Figs 13-14 suggest the porosity of the top mesh layer to be larger than the porosity of the bottom mesh layer (Figs 13-14, top holes 52 visually larger and more numerous than holes 56; “a plurality of fine openings at the bottom center for passing the filtered water, and small enough for containing the granules of the filter medium 21”, Col 4 ln 38-43; see Figure 1 Above).While the prior art figure(s) may not be drawn to scale, in building the reference structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conserve the apparent proportions and reasonably expect a porosity gradient of large to small to improve filter performance.
Wise is analogous art because Wise is in the same field of portable filters for drinking water (Wise Abstract).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise with the porosity difference suggested by the illustrations of Wise. In doing so “Such an arrangement has the advantage that the water flow through the filter unit is urged toward the middle of the bottom layer which provides a good, more penetrating water flow” (Wise Col 4 ln 44-48)”.
Regarding Claim 2, Wise teaches said filter allows for bidirectional flow (“FIG. 7 shows filtered water 25 being poured into a drinking glass C, while it traverses the filter medium 21 a second time for additional purification”, Col 4 ln 49-51).
Regarding Claim 3, An embodiment of Wise teaches the apparatus includes a reservoir near the top opening of the filter to temporarily hold and funnel influent water into the filter (mouth 16).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container.
Regarding Claim 4, An embodiment of Wise teaches a cap configured to be coupled with the filter to prevent water from escaping the unit when sealed (lid 11).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container.
Regarding Claim 5, An embodiment of Wise teaches said cap is sealable to the filter (Fig. 3, Elements 11, 20, and 22).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container.
Regarding Claim 6, An embodiment of Wise teaches a portable, personal, reusable bottle body (jar 10) serving as a vessel upon which said filter housing is attached (Fig. 3, Elements 10, 11, 20, and 22).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container.
Regarding Claim 7, An embodiment of Wise teaches said bottle is configured to match an ergonomic curvature of the filter housing (Fig. 3, elements 10, 14, and 20)
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container.
Regarding Claim 8, An embodiment of Wise teaches the filtration media further includes one or more of the following media: adsorbent media (“holds a measured small amount of granulated filter medium 21. The filter medium 21 may advantageously be granular activated charcoal which is well known to be an effective filter medium. The filter medium, however, shall not be confined to granular charcoal alone”, Col. 3 ln 56-61), KDF-55, KDF-85, brass filings, CuZn, ion exchange media, ion exchange resin, zeolites, activated alumina, mechanical filtration mesh, oxidation media, activated carbon cloth, carbon mesh, carbon screen, carbon padding, carbon fabric, carbon sponge, carbon foam, carbon felt or carbon fiber mat.
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, resealable filtering drinking container with adsorbent capabilities to reduce contaminant presence in drinking water.
Regarding Claim 9, An embodiment of Wise teaches media is compartmentalized (“a pouch 26 containing the filter medium 21”, Col 3 ln 65).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, filtering drinking container with enclosed media to reduce loss of media in drinking water.
Regarding Claim 11, Wise teaches an embodiment wherein at least two filtration media are chosen as to interact with one another and enhance filtration efficacy (“In one very advantageous embodiment the layers 26 and 27 may by themselves have filtration characteristics”, Col 4, ln 35-37).
It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Wise so as to have combined the embodiment to receive filtration benefit from the fabric filter media and the granular filter media.
Regarding Claim 14, Wise teaches said filter is configured to reduce contaminants (“a portable disposable fresh water filter for purifying tap water”, Col 1 ln 6-7), organic compounds, inorganic compounds, chloramines, chlorine, particulates, turbidity, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, formazin, pesticides, atrazine, volatile organic compounds, hormones, endocrine disruptors, or heavy metals.
Regarding Claim 15, An embodiment of Wise teaches said filter includes a permeable filter bag (fabric 22) with filtration media contained therein (Fig. 4 Elements 21 and 22).
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise to form a portable, filtering drinking container to reduce contaminant presence in drinking water.
Regarding Claim 16, Wise teaches said filter includes one or more filtration chambers (filter unit 50).
Regarding Claim 17, Wise teaches an apparatus for treating water (“water filter that is suited for filtering small quantities of drinking water”, Abstract), comprising:
a bottle (Fig. 12 Element 14) having a mouth (Fig. 12 Element 42); and a filter assembly coupled to the bottle (Fig. 12 Element 20, 22, 30, 43, 44a, 45, 46) and a cap configured to attach to the bottle (Fig. 12 Elements 12 and 41).
Another embodiment of Wise teaches a filter housing (Fig. 13 Element 51) containing a filter (Fig. 13 Element 50), wherein the filter comprises: a cartridge (“bowl 55 … having a number of small holes 56 …that filtered water can pass through the holes”, Col 5 lines 3-18); a filtration media disposed inside the cartridge (“shallow hemispheric bowl 55 containing granular filter medium 21”, Col 5 ln 6-7); a top end of the cartridge comprising a top mesh layer and covering a top opening of the filter (“An upper layer 51 of containing fabric encloses the filter medium from the upper side”, Col 5 ln 10-11);
Another embodiment of Wise teaches a filter unit (30), a top mesh layer (fabric 27) covering a top opening of the filter (filter unit 30) and a bottom mesh layer (fabric 26) covering a bottom opening of the filter (“In the embodiment 30 according to FIG. 6, the filter unit 30 consists of a circular piece of containing fabric 22 and 26 containing granulated filter medium 21. Another separate piece of containing fabric 27, cut as a coordinated substantially circular piece of fabric 27 is attached, at the edges. 27a, to the inside of the skirt 22 by sewing, adhesive, cementing or any other suitable process, so that the filter medium 21 is contained between the two layers of fabric 26 and 27. The fabric 26 and 27 may be a coarse woven fabric such as gauze, cheese cloth”, Col 4 ln 22-32)
While Wise does not quantitatively compare the top mesh to the bottom, Wise Figs 13-14 suggest the porosity of the top mesh layer to be larger than the porosity of the bottom mesh layer (Figs 13-14, top holes 52 seem visually larger and more numerous than holes 56; “a plurality of fine openings at the bottom center for passing the filtered water, and small enough for containing the granules of the filter medium 21”, Col 4 ln 38-43; see Figure 1 Above).While the prior art figure(s) may not be drawn to scale, in building the reference structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conserve the apparent proportions and reasonably expect a porosity gradient of large to small to improve filter performance.
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise with the porosity difference suggested by the illustrations of Wise. In doing so “Such an arrangement has the advantage that the water flow through the filter unit is urged toward the middle of the bottom layer which provides a good, more penetrating water flow” (Wise Col 4 ln 44-48)”.
Regarding Claim 19, Wise teaches an apparatus for treating drinking water (“water filter that is suited for filtering small quantities of drinking water”, Abstract), comprising: a bottle (Fig. 12 Element 14) having a mouth (Fig. 12 Element 42); and a filter assembly coupled to the bottle (Fig. 12 Element 20, 22, 30, 43, 44a, 45, 46).
Another embodiment of Wise teaches a filter housing (Fig. 13 Element 51) containing a filter (Fig. 13 Element 50), wherein the filter comprises: a cartridge (“bowl 55 … having a number of small holes 56 …that filtered water can pass through the holes”, Col 5 lines 3-18); a filtration media disposed inside the cartridge (“shallow hemispheric bowl 55 containing granular filter medium 21”, Col 5 ln 6-7); a top end of the cartridge comprising a top mesh layer and covering a top opening of the filter (“An upper layer 51 of containing fabric encloses the filter medium from the upper side”, Col 5 ln 10-11);
Another embodiment of Wise teaches a filter unit (30), a top mesh layer (fabric 27) covering a top opening of the filter (filter unit 30) and a bottom mesh layer (fabric 26) covering a bottom opening of the filter (“In the embodiment 30 according to FIG. 6, the filter unit 30 consists of a circular piece of containing fabric 22 and 26 containing granulated filter medium 21. Another separate piece of containing fabric 27, cut as a coordinated substantially circular piece of fabric 27 is attached, at the edges. 27a, to the inside of the skirt 22 by sewing, adhesive, cementing or any other suitable process, so that the filter medium 21 is contained between the two layers of fabric 26 and 27. The fabric 26 and 27 may be a coarse woven fabric such as gauze, cheese cloth”, Col 4 ln 22-32)
While Wise does not quantitatively compare the top mesh to the bottom, Wise Figs 13-14 suggest the porosity of the top mesh layer to be larger than the porosity of the bottom mesh layer (Figs 13-14, top holes 52 seem visually larger and more numerous than holes 56; “a plurality of fine openings at the bottom center for passing the filtered water, and small enough for containing the granules of the filter medium 21”, Col 4 ln 38-43; see Figure 1 Above).While the prior art figure(s) may not be drawn to scale, in building the reference structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conserve the apparent proportions and reasonably expect a porosity gradient of large to small to improve filter performance.
It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise with the porosity difference suggested by the illustrations of Wise. In doing so “Such an arrangement has the advantage that the water flow through the filter unit is urged toward the middle of the bottom layer which provides a good, more penetrating water flow” (Wise Col 4 ln 44-48)”.
Regarding Claim 21, Wise teaches the filter assembly connects to the cap (lid 11).
Regarding Claim 22, Wise teaches the filter assembly connects to the cap (lid 11).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Wise (US 4,605,499) in view of Patil et al (US 2006/0163136).
Regarding Claim 10, Wise teaches said filter includes filtration pellets (“The filter medium 21 may advantageously be granular activated charcoal”, Col. 3 ln 58-59).
While Wise does not explicit teach surface-embedded agents, Wise does provide motivation for including agents not limited to granular activated carbon: “The filter medium, however, shall not be confined to granular charcoal alone since other filter media or compositions thereof are known”, (Col 3 ln 60-62).
However, Patil et. al teaches filtration pellets that are surface-embedded with antimicrobial agents (“granules are preferably impregnated with antimicrobial compounds… silver (elemental silver or nanoparticle silver)”, [0021]) and teaches that such an arrangement protects the filter media from microbial growth.
Patil et al is analogous art because Patil et al is in the same field of granular filter devices that
operate under gravity and contain granular particles (Patil et al Abstract).
It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Wise so as to have included filtration pellets that were surface-embedded with anti-microbial agents as suggested by Patil et al in order to protect the filter from microbial growth.
Regarding Claim 12, While Wise does not positively teach multiple types of filter media comingled, Wise does provide motivation for including agents not limited to granular activated carbon: “The filter medium, however, shall not be confined to granular charcoal alone since other filter media or compositions thereof are known”, (Col 3 ln 60-62).
However, Patil et al teaches the concept of combined media (“The invented flow facilitator is utilized in a gravity fed granular filter device in which the media consists of activated carbon, synthetic ion exchange resins, silica, alumina, titania, green sands, iron oxides or mixtures thereof”, [0012]) such that a rate of contaminant reduction is greater with the combination than that with individual media not housed in combination (“granules are preferably impregnated with antimicrobial compounds … to protect the filter media and the filter components from microbial growth”, [0021], without antimicrobial agents the reduction rate of microbe contamination would be null).
It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Wise so as to have included filtration pellets that were surface-embedded with anti-microbial agents as suggested by Patil et al in order to enable removal rate improvements for different kinds of contaminants from the water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Examiner has not supported the obviousness rejection with a reasoned explanation but has merely provided speculatory and conclusory statements like, for example, "Wise Figs 13-14 suggest the porosity of the top mesh layer to be larger than the porosity of the bottom mesh layer," and "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conserve the apparent proportions and reasonably expect a porosity gradient of large to small to improve filter performance."” (See Remarks p 2 ¶ 1)
In response, Examiner clarifies the Annotated Figure 1 of the previous Office Action denoting Element 52 is visually wider and more numerous than Element 56, and there is no reason to assume these relative proportions and ratios would be changed.
MPEP 2125: “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Examiner provides a reasoned explanation in the previous Office Action “It would have been obvious to have combined the embodiments of Wise with the porosity difference suggested by the illustrations of Wise. In doing so “Such an arrangement has the advantage that the water flow through the filter unit is urged toward the middle of the bottom layer which provides a good, more penetrating water flow” (Wise Col 4 ln 44-48)”.
Applicant argues “Dalwadi is not prior art… Dalwadi was published October 8, 2015, which is after the priority date of the currently pending application. Accordingly, Dalwadi does not qualify as prior art.” (See Remarks p 2 ¶ 2)
In response, Examiner respectfully points to MPEP 2124 states “In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism”.
Dalwadi was used as a scientific truism regarding the relationship between differential porosity and filtration efficiency. However, given the clarification request regarding porosity (See Claim Interpretation section above), for the sake of clarity of record, Dalwadi has been removed.
MPEP 1207.03(a)(II): “If the examiner’s answer removes one or more references from the statement of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, and relies on the same teachings of the remaining references to support the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, then the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection.”
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the dependent claims are allowable not only because each of these claims depend from an allowable base claim, but also because each recites limitations not taught or suggested by the prior art.” (See Remarks p 8 ¶1).
In response, Examiner respectfully points to the previous Office Action, p 11, for prior art suggesting the limitations recited in claims 10 and 12, such that “It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Wise so as to have included filtration pellets that were surface-embedded with anti-microbial agents as suggested by Patil et al in order to enable removal rate improvements for different kinds of contaminants from the water”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20110089103-A1, US-20140158640-A1, US-20080223797-A1, US-20120298614-A1, US-20060163174-A1, US-5609759, US-20050279728-A1, US-5273649,
Russell E. Madsen Jr., Theodore H. Meltzer, Maik W. Jornitz. “The Relationship among Pore-Size Ratings, Bubble Points, and Porosity”, Pharmaceutical Technology, Volume 31, Issue 1, 01-02-2007
P.J. Richards and M. Robinson. “Wind loads on porous structures”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 83 (1999) 455-465
H. H. Gerke and M. T. Van Genuchten “A Dual-Porosity Model for Simulating the Preferential Movement of Water and Solutes in Structured Porous Media”, Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 2, pages 305-319, February 1993
Helen H. Epps and Karen K. Leonas. “Pore Size and Air Permeability Of Four Nonwoven Fabrics”, International Nonwovens Journal. 2000; os-9(2).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/MARRIAH CG ELLINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773