DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-16 remain pending in the application. Claim 10 is previously cancelled and claims 1, 14 and 16 have been amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to claim 16 is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (p. 7) with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9, 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues (p. 7) that the amended claim 1 now requires that the coupling member directly couples the two receptacles and primary reference, Maiden, fails to teach this.
The Examiner has introduced a new reference, Jones (US 2775350 A) to remedy this deficiency.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9, 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 8) that there is no motivation to modify Maiden’s cap and coupling member with Hoefte’s bi-directional slit-valve because Maiden’s filtration system is designed as a one-way filtration system. Maiden teaches that water flows only from the first bottle to the second bottle and not in reverse. Applicant contents that incorporating Hoefte’s bidirectional slit-valve would contradict Maiden’s intended one directional operation, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Maiden’s disclosure that the filter element is a one way filter merely describes the intended direction of fluid transfer during filtration from the first to the second container. The rejection does not require altering Maiden such that liquid filtration occurs bidirectionally. Rather, Hoefte’s slit-valve is relied upon for its known sealing and fluid control characteristics which may be incorporated into Maiden in order to isolate the liquid in each container until the user is ready to transfer. Additionally, Maiden states that after filtration, the filter is cleaned and repositioned in its base ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a bidirectional valve facilitating this step by using some of the clean water in the second container to back flush the debris in the filter by inverting the second container while the first container is uncoupled. Therefore, incorporation of Hoefte’s slit-valve would not change Maiden’s intended one-way filtration operation and the modification would merely represent a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, ll. 1-2 recite “said barrier member”. Line 10 of claim 1, by which claim 2 depends, states “at least one barrier member”. For consistency and clarity of record, Applicant may amend claim 2 to recite “said at least one barrier member”.
Claim 3 is objected to based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, ll. 1-2 recite “said barrier member”. Line 10 of claim 1, by which claim 13 depends, states “at least one barrier member”. For consistency and clarity of record, Applicant may amend claim 13 to recite “said at least one barrier member”.
Claim 14 is objected to based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, ll. 1-2 recite “said barrier member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 10 of claim 1, by which claim 14 depends, states “at least one barrier member”. Applicant may amend claim 14 to recite “said at least one barrier member”.
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed invention. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114. Note that functional limitations are emphasized in italics herein.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A) and Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maiden teaches a container assembly (two bottle filtration system 900; [0044]; Figs.9A-9B) for handling a biological sample (the two bottle filtration system is functionally capable of handling a biological sample, since “the filtration system is…for removing biological contaminants; [0012]), comprising:
a first receptacle (first water bottle 200A; [0044]; Figs.9A-9B) and a second receptacle (second water bottle 200B; [0044]; Figs. 9A-9B), each one being identical (Fig. 9B shows identical bottles that possess the same cylindrical body and mouth diameters) and configured to receive a fluid from the other of the first receptacle or second receptacle (water flows…from a first water bottle…to a second water bottle, contain the fluid (Maiden interchangeably describes the water bottles as container; [0012]), and dispense the fluid to the other of the first receptacle or second receptacle (Maiden’s coupling device structurally permits bidirectional fluid communication between receptacles because the filter 130 (Fig. 1A-1B) is porous).
a coupling member (“connector ring 800 threadingly engage[d] [to] the cap 100,” wherein both the connector ring and the cap together form the coupling member; [0044]; Figs. 1C, 9A-9B), adapted to operably couple said first receptacle and said second receptacle (to interconnect the two bottles; [0044]), so as to provide a sealed fluid passage between said first and second receptacle (provide a water-tight path for the water; [0044]);
at least one barrier member (filter 130; [0028]; Fig. 1A-1B), operably mounted within said fluid passage of said coupling member at an output of said first receptacle (The cap 100 includes…a filter 130 that interfaces with a base 110…adapted to attach to a standard inlet (not shown) through which water enters or leaves the water storage container; [0028]), configured to prevent solids of a predetermined size to pass from said first receptacle into said second receptacle (“a mesh 132 in the filter 130…contains holes that are sized to block relatively large particulates…as water passes through the filter 130 and into the storage container,” wherein the storage container is the second receptacle; [0030]; Figs. 1A-1B); and
Maiden fails to teach that the coupling member is adapted to directly couple said first receptacle and said second receptacle, and
at least one self-sealing dispensing valve, operably mounted within said fluid passage of said coupling member, adapted to allow bi-directional fluid flow at a predetermined fluid pressure,
wherein the at least one self-sealing dispensing valve comprises an annular side wall configured to be insertable into said fluid passage of the coupling member, and a resilient membrane having at least one substantially centrally located slit with a plurality of flaps adapted to open under a predetermined fluid pressure.
Jones teaches a coupling member adapted to directly couple a first and second receptacle (a double-ended coupling member is provided, adapted at its ends to be connected (as by screwing) the respective necks of two bottles or like containers; col. 1, ll. 29-32; Figs. 1-8).
Jones is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for filtering a liquid by coupling two containers. The coupling member of Maiden is in two parts, where the connector ring screws onto the first container and the cap including a filter screws onto the other container (See Figs. 1A, 9A-9B). Jones’ one-piece coupling member includes an internal cavity that supports a filter element that is used to obtain a sterilized solution when passing from one container to the other (col. 3, ll. 13-14; Fig. 3). Maiden also houses a filter within the cap that is positioned between the two bottles for the same purpose (item 132 in Fig. 1A), and could be installed within the Jones’ coupling member with a reasonable expectation of success. Jones further teaches that an integral form of the coupling device with the filter slot is preferred as being more amenable to sterilization (col. 3, ll. 19-24). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the connector ring and cap assembly taught by Maiden with the unified coupling member taught by Jones because reducing the part count, simplifying assembly and maintaining a watertight flow path while preserving Maiden’s internal filtration is beneficial and this involves swapping one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Hoefte teaches at least one self-sealing dispensing valve (valve (20)…having…self-sealing, slits; [0059]; Fig. 4), operably mounted within a fluid passage of a coupling member (“mounted in the body (10),” “for being contacted by the liquid contained inside the inverted container (2)”; [0058]; [0057]), adapted to allow bi-directional fluid flow at a predetermined fluid pressure (“the valve (20) is preferably a…2-way bi-directional…valve,” and “openable when the pressure on the valve interior side (21) exceeds the pressure on the valve exterior side (22)”; [0058][0057]), and
wherein the at least one self-sealing dispensing valve (valve (20)…having…self-sealing, slits; [0059]; Fig. 4) comprises an annular side wall (See Fig. 5 below) configured to be insertable into said fluid passage of the coupling member (a valve (20) localized in the body (10) extending across the internal discharge conduit (12); [0057; Figs. 3-5), and a resilient membrane (flexible central portion (24); [0059]; Fig. 4) having at least one substantially centrally located slit (having at least one, preferably at least two, preferably a plurality (i.e., three or more), of planar, self-sealing, slits (25); [0059]; Fig. 4) with a plurality of flaps (four, generally sector-shaped, equally sized flaps (27); [0060]; Fig. 5) adapted to open under a predetermined fluid pressure (“The flaps (27) may be characterized as the openable portions of the valve (20) that reacts to pressure differences,” which “may open to permit dispensing of liquid therethrough in response to an increased pressure”; [0060][0058]; Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hoefte, Fig. 5
Hoefte is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for dispensing liquid from an inverted container. In a static state, the valve would be in a closed position, and in a pressurized state, the fluid would flow into the other container; therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the water bottle connector system of Maiden in view of Jones to perform the same function as it would with the combination of a bi-directional valve since the device is already capable of bi-directional flow. Additionally, Maiden states that after filtration, the filter is cleaned and repositioned in its base ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of a bidirectional valve facilitating this step by using some of the clean water in the second container to back flush the debris in the filter by inverting the second container while the first container is uncoupled. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling member taught by Maiden in view of Jones to include the bidirectional slit-valve taught by Hoefte because the slit-valve would isolate the liquid in each container until the user is ready to transfer while also allowing reverse flow of clean water to flush out the filter, and this involves the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said first receptacle and said second receptacle are at least partially made of a resiliently deformable material (Nalgene.TM.-type water bottles; [0028])(Nalgene containers are made of plastic and capable of deformability. Applicant has not claimed a specific pressure that makes the material deformable or the specific material).
Regarding claim 5, The container assembly according to claim 4, wherein said resiliently deformable material is a polymer (Nalgene is naturally made of plastic which is a polymer).
Regarding claim 8, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said coupling member comprises a threaded inner surface adapted to mountably (vertically; [0012]) engage with a corresponding threaded outer surface of said first and second receptacle (“connector ring that threadingly engages both an inlet of the first water bottle, and the cap that is, in turn, attached to the second water bottle,” wherein “the cap threadingly engages with the outer surface of the inlet…of the second water bottle,” wherein, together, the connector ring and cap is the coupling member; [0012])(Paragraph [0031] and Fig. 2A explain and show that the base 110 of the cap has inner threads that connect to the second container and Fig. 8 shows inner threads of the connector ring 800 that would connect to the first container).
Regarding claim 9, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said coupling member further comprises an internal housing (the coupling member is an open ended tube; Jones, col. 2, ll. 70-71)(discharge conduit (12); Hoefte, [0057]; Fig. 3) configured to retainingly receive said at least one self-sealing dispensing valve ) the top face of the wall 12 may be recessed; Jones, col. 3, ll. 10-11)(a valve (20) localized in the body (10) extending across the internal discharge conduit (12); Hoefte, [0057]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said resilient membrane comprises at least three slits radially arranged (three or more), of planar, self-sealing, slits (25) which extends radially outward towards distal ends (26); [0059]; Hoefte, Fig. 4) so as to form three resilient flaps adapted to open at a predetermined fluid pressure (the intersecting slits (25) define four, generally sector-shaped, equally sized flaps (27) in the valve (20)(the transitional term “comprising” in claim 1 is open-ended and permits inclusion of additional unrecited elements as discussed in MPEP 2111.03). The flaps (27) may be characterized as the openable portions of the valve (20) that reacts to pressure differences; [0060]; Hoefte, Fig. 5)(the slits (25) are straight (as shown in FIG. 4) or may have various different shapes, sized and/or configurations; Hoefte, [0059]).
Regarding claim 12, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said at least one self-sealing dispensing valve is made from a resilient silicone material (The valve (20) is preferably molded as a unitary structure from materials which are…resilient…including silicone rubber; Hoefte, [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein said barrier member is a grid having a predetermined grid spacing (a mesh filter, the to mesh size is within a range between 4 and 2 microns; Maiden, [0044]).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A) and Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Muir (US 20090216213 A1).
Regarding claim 2, The container assembly according to claim 1.
Modified Maiden fails to teach said barrier member further comprises a protrusion extending from a surface facing said first receptacle that is adapted to receive and position the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member.
Muir teaches a protrusion (Piercing member 6; [0061]; Fig. 3) that is adapted to receive and position the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member (the protrusion is functionally capable of receiving and positioning the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member).
Muir is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of a container system for releasably storing a substance (Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter member (Maiden, 130 of Fig. 1B) taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte by adding the protrusion taught by Muir because directing the fluid flow into the barrier member would reduce leakage and clogging (Muir, page 1, line 4), and this involves the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, The container assembly according to claim 13.
Modified Maiden fails to teach said barrier member further comprises a protrusion extending from a surface facing said first receptacle that is adapted to receive and position the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member and wherein said protrusion is located adjacent to said grid.
Muir teaches a protrusion (Piercing member 6; [0061]; Fig. 3) that is adapted to receive and position the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member (the protrusion is functionally capable of receiving and positioning the biological sample when placing the biological sample onto said at least one barrier member) and wherein said protrusion is located adjacent to said grid (See Fig. 18 of Muir showing the positioning of piercing member 6 in relation to the circular opening wherein the filter taught by Maiden would be positioned).
Muir is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of a container system for releasably storing a substance (Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter member (Maiden, 130 of Fig. 1B) taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte by adding the protrusion taught by Muir because directing the fluid flow into the barrier member would reduce leakage and clogging (Muir, page 1, line 4), and this involves the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A), Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1) and Muir (US 20090216213 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view Steinhaus (“Welded Wedge Wire Screens and Industrial Filter Media,” 03-2019).
Regarding claim 3, The container assembly according to claim 2, and said protrusion has a sharp-edge cross-section (Piercing member 6 can be approximately trapezoidal in shape and includes first cutting edge 33 having pointed end 30 at one corner of the trapezoid and a second end at a second corner of the trapezoid where cutting edge 32 intersects side wall 34; [0061]; Fig. 3).
Modified Muir fails to teach a substantially triangular cross-section, but rather a trapezoidal cross-section ([0061]; Fig. 3)
Steinhaus teaches a protrusion with a substantially triangular cross-section (The triangular shape of the slot; page 8, line 9).
Steinhaus is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for wire screens in filter media (Title). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the trapezoidal cross-section of the protrusion taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte and in further view of Muir with the well-known triangular protrusion cross-section of Steinhaus because “the downward widening slot [triangular shape] in flow direction prevents blockage of near-mesh grain size particles” (Steinhaus, page 8, last 2 lines), and this involves the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A) and Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Thermo Scientific (“Nalgene Bottles and Carboys Technical Brochure,” 2012).
Regarding claim 6, The container assembly according to claim 5,
Modified Maiden fails to teach said polymer is any one of polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene.
Thermo Fisher teaches Nalgene bottles made of any one of polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene (“HDPE,” known as “high-density polyethylene; page 4, column 4 and Resin codes on page 21).
Thermo Fisher is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for containers capable of storing biological samples. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic Nalgene bottles taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte with the polymer-specific Nalgene bottles taught by Thermo Fisher because there are a finite number of identified, predictable Nalgene-like bottles and this includes a modification that would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success based upon its suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A) and Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Colasacco (US 6418987 B1).
Regarding claim 7, The container assembly according to claim 1,
Modified Maiden fails to teach any one of said first and said second receptacles is made from a transparent material.
Modified Maiden instead teaches generic “Nalgene.TM.-type water bottles” (Maiden, [0028]).
Colasacco teaches any one of said first and said second receptacles is made from a transparent material (transparent containers; column 1, line 25; Fig. 2).
Colasacco is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for removing fluid from a first container into a second container. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the nontransparent containers taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte with the transparent containers taught by Colasacco because monitoring the progress of water transfer using the naked eye (Colasacco, column 1, lines 25-27) makes for a quicker operation, and this includes the substitution of one known element for another to achieve the predictable result of gathering real-time data for the liquid content in each container (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiden (US 20100237017 A1) in view of Jones (US 2775350 A) and Hoefte (US 20190161253 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lim (US 20200206031 A1, EFD 2018).
Regarding claim 15, The container assembly according to claim 1,
Modified Maiden fails to teach said side wall further comprises a set of lip members to allow positioning of the at least one self- sealing dispending valve within said fluid passage.
Lim teaches a set of lip members (See upper and lower horizontal ridges that encase indentation 123 in Fig. 8B; [0091]) to allow positioning of the at least one self- sealing dispending valve (flexible membrane 35; [0091]; Fig. 8E) within said fluid passage (used to hold flexible membrane 35 and connect eye drop dispenser holder case 120 to eye drop dispenser holder body 107; [0091]; Figs 8A-F).
Lim is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for the design and use of elastomeric slit-valve structures for controlling liquid flow. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side wall of the seal-sealing dispensing valve taught by Maiden in view of Hoefte to include lip members taught by Lim in order to firmly hold the valve within the coupling member because a tighter grip between the valve and coupling device due to friction would maintain pressure in the system by preventing leakage and this involves a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, The container assembly according to claim 1,
Modified Maiden fails to teach said side wall further comprises at least two elongated side protrusions to provide for positioning and retention of said at least one self-sealing dispensing valve inside said fluid passage.
Lim teaches at least two elongated side protrusions (locking pins 125; [0091]; Fig. 8D) to provide for positioning and retention of said at least one self-sealing dispending valve inside said fluid passage (used to hold flexible membrane 35 and connect eye drop dispenser holder case 120 to eye drop dispenser holder body 107; [0091]; Figs 8A-F).
Lim is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for the design and use of elastomeric slit-valve structures for controlling liquid flow. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side wall of the seal-sealing dispensing valve taught by Maiden in view of Jones and Hoefte to include lip members taught by Lim because firmly holding the valve within the coupling member would improve sealing, retention, and positional alignment within the housing of the coupling device and this involves a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pritchard et al., 2009 (instant PTO-892) teaches a water bottle for filtering water using applied pressure through a filter.
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 VALERIE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (703)756-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights