DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
Claim 1 has been amended to require “coupler”, therefore the claim interpretation under 112(f) is withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
By amendment, the claims have antecedent basis, therefore the indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 103: claim 21
The remarks take the position that Gellibolian cannot be characterized as being configured to contain a smaller contiguous volume of fluid than its filtration assembly. This has been found unpersuasive. Initially, it is pointed out that the claim requires “a large fluid storage region” and “a fluid storage region”. The only limiting requirement to the regions are that they are bounded. Therefore, any bounded region is sufficient to meet the requirements for “storage region”. Here, in Gellibolian, the filtration assembly is not interpreted to be the large storage region, but instead the combination of the outer bottle and the filtration assembly. Since the outer bottle and filtration assembly are in fluid contact (i.e. in order to filter fluid from outer bottle through filter), the large fluid region is interpreted to be a combination of both the outer bottle and the filtration system is within the scope of large storage region. Moreover, since the outer bottle of Gellibolian is larger than the inner bottle (i.e. in order to allow the inner bottle to be nested therein), the outer bottle and filter assembly necessarily have a larger volume than the inner bottle.
Therefore, the remarks hare unpersuasive.
The remarks continue by contending that the inner bottle of Gellibolian moves downward into its inner bottle when fluid enters its fluid assembly and therefore the combination of the outer bottle and the filter assembly cannot be characterized as configured to contain a contiguous volume of fluid while the fluid storage region is above the larger storage volume.
This has not been found persuasive. Paragraph [0093] teaches the inner bottle 2 includes a bottle dynamic seal 40 that seals the inner bottle 2 to the outer bottle 1 at the bottom of the outer bottle 1 ensuring that as the inner bottle 2 is pushed into the inner bottle 1 (fig. 14) and the fluid in the outer bottle 1 is forced through the filter inlet hole 49”
In otherwords, the outer bottle is filled with a fluid, the inner bottle coupled to the filter assembly is pushed into the outer bottle and fluid is forced through the filter inlet hole 49 (fig. 14). At this point, the inner bottle is empty and above the outer bottle (fig. 14) and the outer bottle and filter assembly via inlet hole 49 contains a contiguous volume (bounded region).
Therefore the remarks with respect to claim 21 are non-persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 103: claim 30 and 38
Claims 30 and 38 have been similarly amended and therefore the remarks are unpersuasive for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 103: claim 29 and 33
The remarks take the position that claims 29 and 33 are not taught by the prior art because of the amendment to claim 27. Claim 27 now requires “wherein the container further includes a set of one way valves separating the fluid storage region from the large storage region. Gellibolian teaches in paragraph [0076] that one or more check valves in the filtration assembly of the base of inner bottle 2 and [0074] teaches the check valve is a one way check valve, thus only allowing fluid from the outer bottle to the inner bottle. Therefore, since the large fluid storage region includes both the filter and the outer bottle, the check valves in the filter only allow fluid to travel in the direction of the inner bottle (i.e. fluid storage region).
With respect to claims 29 and 33, Palmer was only used to modify the combined device to include filter particles in the one way values. Since Gellibolian already discloses check values separating in the container only allowing fluid to travel from the large storage region to the fluid storage region and Palmer makes obvious the use of filter particles in a one-way valve, the limitations are obvious in view of the prior art. Applicant is reminded: one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 21 requires “the fluid storage region is coupled to the large storage region with a coupler”. The specification is devoid of this language in the specification. Instead paragraph [0054] of the published application recites “one for each storage region 42A, 42B, which can be attached and selectively detached to expose the storage region 42A using any attachment mechanism, e.g., complementary screw threads”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 fails to meet the written description requirement for “the fluid storage region is coupled to the large storage region with a coupler”. At best paragraph [0056] of the published application recites “one for each storage region 42A, 42B, which can be attached and selectively detached to expose the storage region 42A using any attachment mechanism, e.g., complementary screw threads”.
Specifically, the specification defines the attachment between the storage regions to be an attachment mechanism (such claim terminology would invoke 112(f)). The example attachment mechanism is “complementary screw threads”. However, the claim as amended more broadly requires a coupler, however there is no evidence in the specification that the applicant had possession of the broader terminology. Specifically, if the claim recited “attachment mechanism”, the claim would be limited to the structure “complementary screw threads” or equivalents thereof. However, a coupler is not necessarily screw threads, where the specification provides no support that the broader terminology was in possession by the applicant. MPEP 2163 (II) (B) recites:
“New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971)”
Here, the amendment is broader than what is originally disclosed and therefore violates the written description requirement.
MPEP 2163 (II) (B)(b) recites:
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, … each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”
Here, the only disclosure attachment is that of complementary threads. Since there is no disclosure of a broader “coupler”, claim 21 fails to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 30 and 38 require commensurate limitations and fail to meet the written description requirement as discussed above.
All dependent claims fail to meet the written description requirement by virtue of their dependencies on respective independent claims 21, 30 and 38.
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.
Claims 21-28, 30-32, 34-39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellibolian et al. (US pgPub 2013/0319915)1 in view of:
a) Liao et al. (US pgPub 2017/0280737) or alternatively in view of
b) Cong (WO2017/185217) or alternatively in view of
c) Olmedo et al. (US pgPub 2014/0263377) in view of Liao et al. or Cong
and
further in view of Hsu (US pgPub 20180194645).
Alternatively, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Gellibolian et al. in view of Cong in view of Hsu.
Regarding claim 21, Gellibolian et al. teaches a structure (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a container (1/2), the container having an opening (opening in bottle when lid is removed for filling), a large volume storage region (outer bottle 1 and filtration assembly 3 best seen in figure 14) and a fluid storage region (interior of bottle 2), wherein the fluid storage region is coupled to the large storage region with a coupler (threads couple filtration system 3 to inner bottle 1 ([0093]). Thus in either interpretation the large storage region is coupled to the fluid storage by a coupling mechanism), wherein the large volume storage region is a bounded open area configured to contain a contiguous volume of fluid while the fluid storage region is above the large volume storage region, and wherein the fluid storage region is a smaller bounded open area configured to contain a smaller contiguous volume of fluid (see discussion in response to arguments section above);
a removable cap for selectively covering the opening (figures 1-2 show lid 14 (indicated in figure 5a) covering opening in bottle 1 and figures 4a-4b show lid removed from bottle thus a removable cap), wherein the removable cap includes:
an outlet (18) configured to allow fluid to flow out of the fluid storage region ([0069]), wherein the fluid storage region has an unimpeded two-way fluid connection to the outlet (Paragraph [0036] teaches a “lid that incudes or does not include a flow meter module”. Therefore, Gellibolian envisioned omitting the flow meter module and thus an unimpeded two-way flow between the inner fluid container 2 and the mouthpiece/outlet (18). That is, the flow meter module includes a flow meter housing 34 (0058) and the check valve is only used to prevent fluid from return back through a flow meter (0075) such that an accurate measurement of the amount of fluid that passes through the flow meter ([0075]). Therefore, without the flow meter module there would be no housing and no need for the check valve assembly. Even if they check valve assembly is still used without the flow meter module, paragraph [0074] teaches an embodiment using a two way check valve that allows fluid to pass in both directions thus unimpeded flow); and
a first set of ultraviolet light sources (fig. 2, 28 see paragraph [0058] note “inner bottle reflective surface 64 that is coated with a reflective material in order to minimize the amount of energy lost from light emitting diodes”), wherein the first set of ultraviolet light sources is configured to emit ultraviolet radiation directed into an interior volume of the fluid storage region ([0067], UV light);
a controller configured to manage operation of the first set of ultraviolet light sources ([0038]PCB with controllers linked to LEDs to allow individual to sterilize a fluid. See also button of paragraph [0065]); and
a power source configured to provide power to the controller and the first set of ultraviolet light sources ([067] UV obtains its power either from a battery located on the PCB 27 itself or a battery located in the dangler lid assembly 23), and
a cover (12) configured to be selectively secured directly to at least one of: the removable cap or the container near the opening of the container (selectively secured to lid via spring latch engagement and disengagement see paragraph [0056]), wherein the cover is configured to selectively cover the first set of ultraviolet light sources (fig. 1 shows open configuration not covering UV sources 28 and fig. 2 shows UV sources 28 covered by 12) and the outlet (12 covers or does not cover 18 as seen in figures 1-2) without contacting the first set of ultraviolet light sources (fig. 2, lid 12 does not contact UV sources 28).
Figure 2 of Gellibolian appears to show the outlet 18 contacting cover 12 and thus fails to disclose without contacting the outlet. Gellibolian also fails to expressly teach the LED PCB controller to have logic.
However, Liao teaches a cover (fig.13, 1400) selectively covers the outlet (liquid consumption structure 1430) without contacting the outlet (as seen in figure 13) and a processor having logic to manage the operation of the first set of UV light source (abstract and [0104])
Liao modifies Gellibolian by suggesting a space between the cover and outlet and providing logic to the controller to manage the UV light source operation
Since both inventions are directed towards UV light sterilization within drinking containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the spacing disclosed in Liao between the outlet (i.e. straw (see paragraph [0107] of Liao)) and the cover because it would facilitate the placement of UV light sources within the cover such that UV light may be provided to the liquid consumption structure as well as the liquid ([0107]) therefore sterilizing the mouthpiece such that the mouthpiece may be cleaned between uses, thus mitigating the spread of germs. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the controller of Gellibolian with the logic of Liao because it would allow the exposure time and intensity to be set based on the opacity of the liquid to ensure the liquid receives the appropriate exposure and intensity of UV light for sterilization of its contents ([0104]).
Alternatively, Cong teaches a cover (fig.10, 10) selectively covers the outlet (nipple) without contacting the outlet (no contact between 10 and 12) and a processor having logic to manage the operation of the first set of UV light source ([0071] teaches a circuit board used to control the sterilizing light emitting element and [0077] teaches controller can set the working mode of the light emitting member 22 according to the user’s needs)
Cong modifies Gellibolian by suggesting a space between the cover and the mouthpiece.
Since both inventions are directed towards disinfecting liquid consumption containers with UV light, it would have been obvious to space the straw from the lid in Gellibolian as done in Cong because it would allow for the mouthpiece to be disinfected to eliminate contamination of the contacts by the bacteria from the users mouth, therefore preserving the contents therein. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the logic of the printed circuit board of Cong in the device of Gellibolian because it would facilitate the ability to perform program to automatically perform sterilization according to the user’s needs ([0077])
Alternatively, to Cong, while Gellibolian teaches a seal, Gellibolian fails to disclose the seal positioned between the cover and the outlet.
However, Olmedo et al. teaches a stopper inserted in the cap ([0037]).
Olmedo modifies Gellibolian by suggesting a stopper for the cover such that the lid is not in contact with the outlet.
Since both inventions are directed towards liquid storage containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the stopper Olmedo et al. in the device of Gellibolian because it would provide a liquid and as tight seal and apply a lateral force to the inner straw which pushes the outer diameter of the inner straw against the inner diameter of the outer straw and/or the opening. Such a force may provide an additional seal which can prevent liquid and gas escaping between the outer straw and or the opening and the inner straw, which can preserve the freshness of the beverage ([0037]).
Gellibolian in view of Olmedo et al. fail to disclose the logic. However, Liao and Cong teach these deficiencies as discussed above with the same rational to combine.
The combined device of Gellibolian in view of a) or b) or c) further fails to disclose the logic is configured to manage operation of the first set of UV light sources by preventing the first set of UV light sources from emitting UV light in response to at least one sensed condition.
However Hsu teaches the logic is configured to manage operation of the first set of UV light sources by preventing the first set of UV light sources from emitting UV light in response to at least one sensed condition ([0038]).
Hsu modifies the combined device by suggesting a sensing assembly and a controller that turns off the UV light sources when the two electrodes are not sensed by the sensing assembly.
Since both inventions are directed towards UV light sources incorporated into the cover, it would have been obvious to include the sensing and control logic of Hsu in the combined device because it would prevent inadvertent user exposure to harmful UV light.
Regarding claims 22, Gellibolian et al. differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing at least one sensor located on at least one of: the removable cap or the container, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide data to the control unit indicating a status corresponding to whether the mouthpiece is covered by the mouthpiece cover.
However, Hsu et al. teach at least one sensor (130) located on at least one of: the removable cap (120 is a cover to a water bottle see [0025], see paragraph [0026] for sensor mounted to 120), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide data to the control unit indicating a status corresponding to whether the mouthpiece is covered by the mouthpiece cover ([0026]).
Hsu et al. modifies Gellibolian et al. by suggesting a sensor in the mouthpiece cover so as to determine whether or not the cover is on the container.
Since both inventions are directed towards liquid sterilization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install a sensor in the top cover because it would avoid UV generation by the UV source when the bottle is not covered so as to avoid UV light exposure to a human body ([0026]).
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Gellibolian et al. differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing a second set of UV light sources mounted to the cover, wherein the second set of UV light sources is configured to emit UV radiation onto at least an outer surface of the outlet.
However, Liao et al. teaches a set of ultraviolet light sources (fig. 13, UVLEDs 1500) mounted to the cover (as seen in figure 13), wherein the set of ultraviolet light sources is configured to emit ultraviolet radiation onto at least an outer surface of the outlet ([0107], note: “a UV portion 1400 may be disposed above a bottle 1410, and provide UV light 1420 to the liquid 1510, as well as a liquid consumption structure 1430 (e.g. nipple, spout, straw, etc.).”, wherein 1510 is contained in bottle 1410 and 1430 is contained in mouthpiece cover 1400).
The mouth piece cover 1400 of Liao et al. modifies the cover 12 of Gellibolian et al. by providing a second set of LEDs on the mouthpiece cover such that UV radiation is directed into an interior volume at least partially formed by the mouthpiece.
Since both inventions are directed towards sterilizing water in a water bottle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide UV LEDs on the mouthpiece cover 12 of Gellibolian et al. because “a UV portion 1400 may be disposed above a bottle 1410, and provide UV light 1420 to the liquid 1510, as well as a liquid consumption structure 1430 (e.g. nipple, spout, straw, etc.)” ([0107]). That is, providing UV LEDs above the mouthpiece would facilitate sterilization of the consumption structure, therefore preventing the spread of germs in the mouthpiece as well as the liquid to be sterilized.
Regarding claims 24 and 37, the combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing at least one sensor located on at least one of: the removable cap or the container, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide data to the control unit indicating a status corresponding to whether the mouthpiece is covered by the mouthpiece cover.
However, Hsu et al. teach at least one sensor (130) located on at least one of: the removable cap (120 is a cover to a water bottle see [0025], see paragraph [0026] for sensor mounted to 120), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide data to the control unit indicating a status corresponding to whether the mouthpiece is covered by the mouthpiece cover ([0026]).
Hsu et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting a sensor in the mouthpiece cover so as to determine whether or not the cover is on the container.
Since both inventions are directed towards liquid sterilization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install a sensor in the top cover because it would avoid UV generation by the UV source when the bottle is not covered so as to avoid UV light exposure to a human body ([0026]).
Regarding claim 25, the combined device in view of Hsu teach wherein the controller automatically turns on the second set of UV light sources in response to the status changing to the outlet being covered by the cover (Hsu, [0026]).
Regarding claim 26, Gellibolian et al. in view of Liao teach wherein at least one interior surface of the cover includes a UV reflective material (Liao, figure 13 shows UV light 1420 reflecting off of wall of lid, thus requiring a reflective material. Further paragraph [0107] teaches figure 13 is similar to figure 5, paragraph [0068 teaches the inner wall is formed of a UV reflective material).
Regarding claim 27, Gellibolian et al. teach wherein the container further includes a set of one way valves separating the fluid storage region from the large volume storage region (([0076] teaches one or more check valves in the filtration assembly of the base of inner bottle 2, thus separating inner bottle from large volume (i.e. filtration assembly and outer bottle)) wherein the set of one way valves are configured to only allow fluid to flow from the large volume storage region to the fluid storage region ([0076] teaches one or more check valves in the filtration assembly of the base of inner bottle 2 and [0074] teaches the check valve is a one way check valve, thus only allowing fluid from the outer bottle to the inner bottle).
Regarding claim 28 Gellibolian et al. teach wherein a bottom of the container is a bottom of the large storage region (either the filtration assembly 3 reaching the bottom of outer bottle 1 by pushing ([0093]) (i.e. reaching the bottom of outer bottle 1 and thus an inner bottom of the large storage region (1/3)) or when the filtration assembly 3 is the large storage region, the filtration assembly 3 is the bottom of the inner bottle 2 having a filter enclosure cap 43 see figure 11b and paragraph [0093]) and is removable from the large volume storage region to provide an opening for the large volume storage region to the outside of the container (in the first interpretation, by pulling the inner bottle out of the outer bottle, the filtration assembly (bottom of the large volume storage region) is removable from 2. Alternatively, when interpretating the filtration assembly to be the large volume storage region, the bottom cap 43 of the filtration assembly is removable from the filtration assembly as it is a separate component as shown in figure 10a. That is, two components that may be assembled may be disassembled), wherein the removable cap is removable to provide an opening for the fluid storage region without providing access to the large volume storage region (removable cap (14/12) provides an opening to inner bottle 2 (fluid storage) without providing access to outer bottle 1/3 (large volume storage) because they are separated by the top of the filtration system 3), and wherein the outlet is removable with the removable cap (18 is removable with 14/12).
Regarding claim 21, Liao et al. teach a structure (fig. 13) comprising: a container (1410), the container having an opening and a fluid storage region (1510); a removable cap (nipple and ring see paragraph [0107] teaching nipple spout straw, etc…) for selectively covering the opening (as seen in figure 13), wherein the removable cap includes: an outlet (1430) configured to allow fluid to flow out of the fluid storage region ([0107]) wherein the fluid storage region has an unimpeded two-way fluid connection to the outlet (two way flow between nipple, spout or straw discussed in paragraph [0107]) and a cover (1400)configured to be selectively secured directly to at least one of: the removable cap or the container near the opening of the container (as seen in figure 14), wherein the cover is configured to selectively cover the outlet without contacting the first set of ultraviolet light sources and without contacting the outlet (see discussion above).
Liao et al. differs from claimed invention by not disclosing a first set of ultraviolet light sources, wherein the first set of ultraviolet light sources is configured to emit ultraviolet radiation directed into an interior volume of the fluid storage region; a controller configured to manage operation of the first set of ultraviolet light sources and a power source configured to provide power to the controller and the first set of ultraviolet light sources
However, as discussed above, Gellibolian teaches additional light sources to the lid.
Since both inventions are directed towards sterilization within a drinking container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Liao to have the additional UV light sources, controller and power supply as disclosed in Gellibolian because it would additionally allow for more direct sterilization of the fluid within the bottle.
Liao in view of Gellibolian fails to disclose the claimed logic in the PCB controllers of Gellibolian. However, these deficiencies are remedied by Cong in view of Hsu as discussed herein above.
Claim 30 is commensurate in scope and taught in the citations above in claim 21. Moreover, Gellibolian teaches a bottle in figure 1.
Regarding claim 31 Gellibolian et al. teach wherein a set of one way valves separating the first fluid storage region from the second fluid storage region, wherein the set of one way valves are configured to only allow fluid to flow from the second fluid storage region to the first fluid storage region and wherein the first storage region has a direct fluid connection to the mouthpiece (see discussion in claim 27 above).
Regarding claim 32, Gellibolian et al. teach wherein a bottom of the container is a bottom of the second fluid storage region and is removable from the second fluid storage region to provide an opening for the second fluid storage region to an outside of the container, wherein the removable cap is removable to provide an opening for the first fluid storage region without providing access to the second fluid storage region, and wherein the outlet is removable with the removable cap (see discussion in claim 28 above).
Regarding claim 34, Gellibolian et al. teach wherein the container can be squeezed to force fluid to flow from the second fluid storage region to the first fluid storage region ([0044] note squeezed in combination with the one-way valve discussed above in claim 27).
Regarding claim 36, Gellibolian et al. in view of Liao teaches wherein the second set of UV light sources are controlled by a second controller mounted to the cover (Liao controller 1460 see abstract).
Claim 38 is commensurate in scope with claims 21, 30 and claim 27 and is taught in the citations discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Gellibolian et al. teaches wherein a bottom of the container is a bottom of the second fluid storage region and is removable from the second fluid storage region (see discussion in claim 28 above) to provide an opening for the second fluid storage region to an outside of the container (see discussion in claim 28 above) wherein the bottom includes at least one UV light source configured to emit UV radiation directed into an interior volume of the second fluid storage region (Gellibolian et al., [0041] UV module at base orifice of inner container. Figure 12 shows UV lines towards the interior volume of outer bottle 1) wherein the removable cap is removable to provide is removable to provide an opening for the first fluid storage region without providing access to the second fluid storage region, wherein the outlet is removable with the removable cap (see claim 28 above), wherein an interior surface of the first fluid storage region is non-transparent (reflective as evident from UV rays reflecting off on inner surface of container 2 as seen in figure 12).
Regarding claim 40, Gellibolian et al. in view of Liao teaches a second set of UV light sources (Liao, 1500) mounted to the cover (Liao, as seen in figure 13), wherein the second set of UV light sources is configured to emit UV radiation onto at least an outer surface of the outlet when the cover is secured to the at least one of the removable cap or the container (Liao, as seen in figure 13).
Claims 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellibolian et al. in view of Liao et al., Cong et al., or Olmedo in view of Hsu in view of Palmer et al. (USPN 6,004,460)
Regarding claims 29 and 33, Gellibolian teaches wherein a material that separates the first storage region from the large volume storage region is non-transparent (Paragraph [0068] teaches many non-transparent materials of the lid base 15. The lid base also separates the large volume storage region (i.e. inside bottle 2) from the storage region above the check valves. In other words, the fluid may only pass through the check valves when the lid is in place, therefore the lid base is a material that separates the volume of the bottle from the volume above the check valves. That is, the lid prevents liquid from the bottle from entering through the top of the mouthpiece into the area above the check valve. The claim does not associate the material with any particular structure, therefore the material of the base of the lid, encloses the liquid in the bottle and separates the bottle volume from that of the volume above the check valves.).
The combined device fails to disclose wherein each one way valve comprises a filter to filter particles from the fluid in the first fluid storage region before entering the second fluid storage region.
However, Palmer et al. teaches wherein the one way valve comprises a filter to filter particles from the fluid in the first fluid storage region before entering the second fluid storage region (col. 4, lines 19-27).
Palmer modifies the combined device by suggesting the placement of a filter in the check valve.
Since both inventions are directed towards a check valve in a water bottle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter in each check valve of Gellibolian as done in Palmer because it would prevent foreign materials in the water held in the interior the bottle from entering the check valve (col. 4, lines 19-27). This in particular would be advantageous when the filter of Gellibolian filters significantly less than 100% of the contaminants as discussed in paragraph [0098], thus preventing ingestion of contaminant from the person drinking the water and preventing the check valve from being contaminated therefrom.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Note the independent claims could alternatively be rejected as being obvious over Liao or Cong as discussed in the Final rejection and modified by Gellibolian.