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 with traverse of group II, claims 8-13 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
PNG
media_image1.png
248
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
130
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the disclosed species/subspecies have mutually exclusive structural features that requires specific search queries specific to the disclosed species/subspecies creating search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has cancelled claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
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 8-13 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow velocity of water" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grenier (US 5810043).
Regarding claim 8, Grenier teaches a device for dissolving a soluble disinfectant in solid form in a stream of water flowing in a flow path to provide an aqueous disinfectant solution in the flow path, (refer abstract, fig. 1) the device comprising:
a hollow body defining at least a part of a flow path along which a stream of water can be directed;
a disinfectant dissolution zone (chamber 20) in the flow path in the body, in which a soluble disinfectant in solid format (tablets 21) is in use located; and
a flow modification zone (refer compartment 29 connected to inlet 15, threaded member 33 comprising obstructing end 34 enabling increase/decrease of water flow, perforated plate 27) in the flow path in the body, at an effective distance upstream of the disinfectant dissolution zone, in which flow modification zone a flow modifying component (29) is located, wherein the flow modifying component is configured artificially to modify one or more flow characteristics of water of the stream of water, for modified impact of water of the stream of water onto the disinfectant, by physical interaction of water of the stream of water with the flow modifying component, at constant volumetric flow rate (water from inlet conduit 15 is supplied to the flow modification zone which modifies the flow of water into water jets 28), in that the flow modifying component provides: a radial flow directing formation (refer fig. 1 indicating flow of water comping into water supply compartment 29 being radially distributed by perforated plate 27), radially to direct water of the stream of water and thus artificially to decrease the flow velocity of water so directed, thus preventing direct impingement of water, so directed, onto the disinfectant in the disinfectant dissolution zone (refer threaded member 33 comprising obstructing end 34 enabling increase/decrease of water flow).
Regarding claim 10, Grenier teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Grenier further teaches that a filter (13) is provided downstream of the dissolution zone. The limitation “for filtering solids from water of the stream of water, including oversized undissolved disinfectant” is reciting intended use of the filter without imparting additional structure. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, Grenier teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Grenier further teaches that the flow modifying component further provides a flow path narrowing formation, axially to direct and thereby artificially to increase the flow velocity of water of the stream of water passed through the formation (refer threaded member 33 comprising obstructing end 34 enabling increase/decrease of water flow; col. 3:lines 23-42).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (US 5810043), in view of Blanchette et al. (US 2018/0133666A1).
Regarding claim 9, Grenier teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Grenier teaches that the disinfectant is provided in form of tablets (refer 21) and that the tablets are arranged in the dissolution zone such that a surface there of faces in an upstream direction (Refer tables 21 faces incoming water from openings in perforated plate 27). Grenier does not teach that the surface facing the upstream direction is the only surface that is accessible to the water of stream of water.
Blanchette teaches a device for creating a solution in water of a solid chemical (abstract), wherein the solid chemical is provided in a cartridge/housing having first end 61 comprising openings/perforations to allow incoming water to contact the solid chemical (refer fig. 5, 6; [0044]). Sidewalls 63 of the cartridge/housing 72 are not perforated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the device of Grenier to arrange the disinfectant tablet such that the surface facing the upstream direction is the only surface that is accessible to the water of stream of water as taught by Blanchette to provide desired amount of contact of water with the disinfectant. Selecting to provide one disinfectant tablet or more than one disinfectant tablet would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (US 5810043), in view of Mock et al. (US 7065803).
Regarding claim 11, Grenier teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Grenier does not teach that the tablets are located in a hollow flexible packet that has symmetrically spaced apertures along its surfaces having a diameter from 0.25mm to 1.0mm.
Mock teaches a dispensing a product (121) such as cyanuric acid into an existing swimming pool circulation system includes providing a product (121) placed within a permeable bag (120). The permeable bag (120) containing the product (121) is placed into a cavity (104) of a flood feeder (100) having an inlet (105) and an outlet (108).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flexible permeable housing for the tablets of Grenier to control dispensing rate as taught by Mock (refer col. 4:lines 3-6). Selecting size of pores in the flexible housing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve desired permeability. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier (US 5810043), in view of Brennan et al. (US 5419355).
Regarding claim 12, Grenier teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Grenier teaches that the disinfectant comprises chlorine (abstract, Col. 1:Lines 4-11). Grenier does not teach that the disinfectant is selected from calcium hypochlorite, sodium dichloroisocyanurate (SDIC) and trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA).
Brennan teaches a device for dissolving a chlorine containing treating material such as calcium hypochlorite in which water is fed to a container preferably in the form of a column containing the treating material (refer abstract).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Selecting calcium hypochlorite as chlorine source in the device of Grenier would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Brennan establishes that it is well known in the art to use calcium hypochlorite as disinfectant for water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777