DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 09/28/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected. Claim 11 is new. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Specification
The Applicant argues that no new matter was introduced in the amended specification (pgs. 6-7). This is unpersuasive as described below.
The Applicant argues that an interpretation for “restrictor” is unduly narrow and provides a definition from resource, Wikipedia (pg. 7). "Wikipedia, as a website, can be an 'unreliable source of information' for purposes of resolving legal disputes, because (1) it is not peer reviewed; (2) the authors are unknown; and (3) apparently anyone can contribute to its content." Ex parte Daum (Appeal No. 2011-012714) (citing Ex parte Mandy, No. 2011-000015, Application No. 10/537,714, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 3163 (Pat. App. May 23, 2013) ("We give minimal weight to Appellant’s citation of a Wikipedia entry"); Ex parte Bailey, No. 2010-010310, Application No. 11/168,650, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 2470 (Pat. App. Apr. 25, 2013) ("Wikipedia has limited probative value in view of its dubious reliability. Among other things, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, the authors are unknown, and apparently anyone can contribute")).
The Applicant argues that renaming element 32 of Fig. 3 to an “end cap” is self-evident and is not new matter (pg. 7). This is unpersuasive as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 8
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection of Claim 1 (pg. 8) are unpersuasive because new matter was introduced in an attempt to overcome the rejection. Furthermore, the mention of a restrictor in Claim 8 was not amended.
Claim 2
Due to the Applicant’s amendments (pg. 8), the previous 35 USC § 112 rejection has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 1 over Mittleman
The Applicant argues that Mittleman does not teach or suggest that “the end cap is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector” (pg. 9). This is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
Claim 1 over Ford
The Applicant argues that Ford does not disclose “the end cap is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector” (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
The Applicant argues that Ford does not disclose “the check valve is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector” (pg. 10). This is unpersuasive because Figs. 18A-18B depicts a duckbill valve 482 sized to be disposed in the first open end of coupler 428.
Claim 1 over Gardener
The Applicant argues that Gardener does not teach a duckbill valve being disposed in a connector (pg. 11). This is unpersuasive because Gardener teaches that the check valve (Fig. 11, C8/L45-54, dispensing nipple 270 in the form of a duck bill check) is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector (Fig. 11, C9/L5-13, check housing 302 is connected to end of duct 42).
The Applicant argues that Gardener does not teach an end cap that is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector (pg. 11). This is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
Claim 1 over Goda
The Applicant argues that Goda does not teach an “end cap [that] comprises a first main portion with a larger diameter and a second main portion with a smaller diameter, a diameter of the second main portion corresponding to an inner diameter of the socket of the check valve ... and the second main portion of the end cap is insertable into the socket of the check valve,” as recited in amended claim 1 (pg. 12). This is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
Response to Amendment
Specification
The amendment filed 09/28/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: pages 3-4 and 6-9 were amended to refer to an “end cap”, which is absent from the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title of the application remains referring to a backflow preventer.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 1 was amended to refer to an “end cap”, which is absent from the originally filed application.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the restrictor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taiwanese Publication TWM578613U (‘Wu’) in view of U.S. Publication US20200246735A1 (‘Foster’) and in further view of U.S. Patent US4038983A (‘Mittleman’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Wu teaches a check valve set for water filtering equipment ([00002]), the filtering unit connected via a connector connected by at least one hose and connected to a water source ([00003] and [00046]), the connector (Fig. 4, [00043], filter (core) joint 10, [00046], filter core connector 10) has a first open end and a second open end (Fig. 4, [00043]), the check valve set comprising:
a check valve (Fig. 2, [00043], check valve 20); and
an end cap (Fig. 2, [00043], pipe joint assembly 30);
wherein the check valve comprises an elastic tube (Fig. 3, [00043], water pipe 22) and a base (Fig. 3, [00043], bottom ring portion 21), the elastic tube comprising a duckbill valve at one end (Fig. 3, [00043]) and connected to the base at another end (Fig. 3, [00043]), and the base comprises a socket sleeved onto the elastic tube (Fig. 3, [00043]); and
the end cap comprises a first main portion with a larger diameter and a second main portion with a smaller diameter (Fig. 2);
wherein the check valve is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector (Figs. 2-3), and the end cap is sized to be disposed in the first open end of the connector (Figs. 1-2 and 4-5); and
the end cap further comprises a through aperture passing through the first main portion and the second main portion (Fig. 2).
Wu does not teach that the water filtering equipment comprising a plurality of filtering units, the filtering units connected amongst each other via the plurality of connectors, the diameter of the second main portion is corresponding to an inner diameter of the socket of the check valve, the second main portion of the end cap is insertable into the socket of the check valve and the through aperture having a diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the socket.
Foster also relates to a check valve set ([0033]), wherein the water filtering equipment comprising a plurality of filtering units (Figs. 2a-2b, [0034]), the filtering units connected amongst each other via a plurality of connectors (Figs. 2a-2b, [0033]).
Mittleman also relates to a check valve set (abstract) for filtering equipment (C2/L65-C3/L1), wherein the diameter of the second main portion is corresponding to an inner diameter of the socket of the check valve, the second main portion of the end cap is insertable into the socket of the check valve and the through aperture having a diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the socket (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the water filtering equipment of Wu to comprise a plurality of filtering units, the filtering units connected amongst each other via a plurality of connectors, as demonstrated by Foster, so filtering units in series and/or parallel may exist along a fluid path to treat any combination of contaminants in water (Foster, [0034]). It would have been obvious for the diameter of the second main portion of Wu and Foster to correspond to an inner diameter of the socket of the check valve, as demonstrated by Mittleman, in order to establish fluid communication (Mittleman, C3/L46-62) and to prevent the valve from collapsing under compression force (Mittleman, C3/L46-62).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 8: the second main portion of the restrictor is secured with the socket of the check valve (Mittleman, C3/L46-62).
Claim 9: the elastic tube of the check valve further has a protruding stopping ring (Mittleman, Fig. 4a).
Regarding Claims 11, 2-5 and 7, a water filtering equipment comprising the check valve set of Claim 1 (see analysis of Claim 1), the water filtering equipment comprising the plurality of filtering units (Foster, Figs. 2a-2b, [0034]), the filtering units connected amongst each other via the plurality of connectors connected (Foster, Figs. 2a-2b, [0033]) by the at least one hose and connected to the water source (Wu, Figs. 4-5, [00046]), and the at least one of the connectors has the first open end and the second open end (Wu, Figs. 4-5, [00046]), wherein the check valve set is disposed in the first open end of the at least one of the connectors (Wu, Figs. 4-5, [00046]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: the at least one of the filtering units is a filter (Wu, [00008]), a reverse osmosis membrane, or a pressure barrel.
Claim 3: the first open end of the at least one of the connectors is an input end, and the second open end of the at least one of the connectors is an output end (Foster, Figs. 2a-2b).
Claim 4: the check valve set is mounted on the at least one of the connectors for connecting to the water source (Wu, [0003]).
Claim 5: the check valve set is mounted on the at least one of the connectors for connecting to at least one of the filtering units (Wu, Fig. 4, [00043]).
Claim 7: the at least one of the connectors is a locking connector (Wu, [00043] and [00046], Fig. 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taiwanese Publication TWM578613U (‘Wu’), U.S. Publication US20200246735A1 (‘Foster’) and U.S. Patent US4038983A (‘Mittleman’) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20200360842A1 (‘Keskin’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wu, Foster and Mittleman teaches the water filtering equipment of Claim 11, except that the at least one of the connectors is a quick disconnect connector.
Keskin also relates to water filtering equipment (abstract), wherein the at least one of the connectors is a quick disconnect connector ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one of the connectors of the combination of Wu, Foster and Mittleman to be a quick disconnect connector, as demonstrated by Keskin, as needed or as space considerations demand (Keskin, [0044]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taiwanese Publication TWM578613U (‘Wu’), U.S. Publication US20200246735A1 (‘Foster’) and U.S. Patent US4038983A (‘Mittleman’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiamen Better Silicone Rubber Co., Copyright 2016.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wu, Foster and Mittleman teaches the check valve set of Claim 1, including that the check valve is made of rubber (Wu, [00007] and [00043]), except that the rubber has an 80 Shore A hardness.
Xiamen Better Silicone Rubber Co., Copyright 2016 discloses that duckbill valves can be readily made for commercial applications where duckbill valves are required to be made of rubber and has a hardness of 80 Shore A hardness (pg. 7/9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to make the duck bill valve of the combination of Wu, Foster and Mittleman of rubber with a Shore 8 A hardness because according to Xiamen Better Silicone Rubber Co., Copyright 2016, these duckbill valves can be used for medical applications and duckbill valve hardness is key to non-return valve quality (Xiamen Better Silicone Rubber Co., Copyright 2016, pg. 3/9).
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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779