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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2026 has been entered.
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 14 and 17-20 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.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a bottle filler having features that engage the connection mount (lines 11-12) and “a filtration status dashboard configured to be mounted to the connection mount of the basin” (line 13). It is unclear if the claim requires both elements to be engaged with the connection mount at the same time. According to Examiner’s best understanding of the invention in light of the specification, the water dispensing station is configured to include either the bottle filler or the dashboard (see Paragraph 0078 of the specification). For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted such that a device having a bottle filler that includes the recited features of the filtration status dashboard (i.e., LED and printed circuit board) satisfies both limitations of the claim. The remaining claims depend upon claim 14 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “a lip formed by the connection mount” (lines 2-3) after reciting “a lip of the elevated surface of the connection mount” in claim 14 (line 12), raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Further, Examiner notes that the limitation “the filtration status dashboard further includes a gasket configured to sealingly engage a lip formed by the connection mount” (lines 1-3) appears to be supported in the specification by the description of gasket 850 (see Paragraph 0077; Fig. 13A), but gasket 918 does not appear to engage the lip (see Paragraph 0080; Fig. 17). This further confuses the issue described above regarding the recitation of both a bottle filler and a filtration status dashboard in claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “a bottle filler” (line 1) after reciting the same in claim 14, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (US 10,934,694) in view of Locke et al. (US 9,704,329).
Porter et al. substantially disclose the claimed invention, including a water dispensing station (102, Fig. 2) comprising: a basin (107) comprising: a drain located at a lowest point of the basin (Figs. 1-2); a bubbler mount (raised area holding bubbler 105 in Figs. 1-2; Col. 4, lines 1-4); and a connection mount (110) located proximate to a back end of the basin (Fig. 2), wherein the connection mount includes an elevated surface (114), wherein the elevated surface defines a set of mounting holes (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and defines a set of cutouts (see annotated Fig. 2 below) through which at least one of plumbing or electrical wiring is to extend (see pipe 130 of water bottle filling station 100, Figs. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 36-39); and a bubbler (105) coupled to the bubbler mount of the basin such that the bubbler is oriented to face toward the drain (Figs. 1-2); and a bottle filler (100) comprising a base plate (124), wherein the base plate comprises a guide fin (each side of 124 with attached bracket 116 or 118 is considered a guide fin; see Col. 4, lines 5-22) configured to align with and engage a lip of the elevated surface of the connection mount (see annotated Fig. 2 below; the lip does not appear to be described in the specification, but it is clear from the drawings that the lip aligns with and extends between the two brackets; Examiner notes that the lip may contribute to the final alignment of the bottle filler with the outer perimeter of the elevated surface, as shown in Fig. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Porter et al., cropped and annotated by Examiner
Porter et al. further disclose that the bottle filler is configured to be mounted to the connection mount of the basin (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 55-58) and fastened to an adjacent wall (104, Fig. 1), as recited in claim 18, but Porter et al. do not disclose a filter unit or a filtration status dashboard.
Locke et al. teach a water dispensing station (LDS) with a bottle filler (204; Fig. 2), a filter unit (216; Fig. 2), and a filtration status dashboard (210), wherein the filtration status dashboard includes an LED to identify a filtration status (Col. 35, line 49 - Col. 36, line 13). Locke et al. further teach that the filtration status dashboard includes a printed circuit board (controller 206 including a programmed processor, Col. 26, lines 28-31) that is electrically connected to the LED (Col. 27, lines 26-31), wherein the printed circuit board is configured to cause the LED to emit (see Col. 27, line 57 - Col. 28, line 56; Fig. 7): a first light color or pattern for when the water being dispensed by the bubbler is being filtered by way of the filter unit; (green LED 768 in Fig. 7 indicates that filter is present and has not reached end of life warning level); a second light color or pattern for when the water being dispensed by the bubbler is not being filtered by way of the filter unit (red LED 762 in Fig. 7 indicates that filter is not present); and a third light color or pattern for when the filter unit has expired (yellow LED 766 in Fig. 7 indicates that filter has reached an end of life warning level). Locke et al. further teach that the filtration status dashboard provides a visual indication of filter health (Col. 26, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the bottle filler of Porter et al. with a filtration status dashboard including an LED and printed circuit board, as taught by Locke et al., in order to indicate filter health for maintenance purposes (e.g., replacing the filter as needed). According to Examiner’s best understanding of the claim (as described above), the modified bottle filler would also be a filtration status dashboard that is configured to be mounted to the connection mount of the basin, as claimed. Examiner notes that Locke et al. does not apply the same terminology as that of the instant invention (e.g., “end of life warning level” rather than “expired”), but that the claimed structure (LED and printed circuit board) is present and appears to be capable of performing the recited function (i.e., the printed circuit board of Locke et al. monitors filter presence and lifespan and thus could be configured to emit a variety of LED colors for a variety of filter lifespan metrics as a user defined variable).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. in view of Locke et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Spurlock (US 2010//0083440).
Porter et al.-Locke et al. in combination disclose the water dispensing station of claim 14, but do not explicitly disclose a gasket configured to sealingly engage a lip formed by the connection mount.
Spurlock teaches a basin (50, Fig. 3) with a connection mount (10, having mounting base 22 with elevated surface 26A), to which a dispenser is mounted with a gasket (64) configured to sealingly engage a lip (periphery of 22/26A) formed by the connection mount (Paragraph 0038, see Fig. 6). Spurlock teaches that this configuration prevents communication of water between an interior and an exterior of the connection mount that may occur from splashing or leakage (Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the filtration status dashboard (incorporated into the bottle filler) of the combined invention of Porter et al.-Locke et al. with a gasket configured to sealingly engage a lip formed by the connection mount in order to prevent the communication of water from splashing or leakage. According to Examiner’s best understanding, a gasket that surrounds the periphery of the elevated surface 114 of Porter et al. would satisfy the requirements of the instant claim.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. in view of Locke et al., as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Leeds et al. (US 11,724,221) and Cushman et al. (US 4,597,525).
Regarding claim 19, Porter et al.-Locke et al in combination disclose the water dispensing station of claim 18. Porter et al. further disclose that the bottle filler comprises a shroud (122, Fig. 3) and a spout (128, Fig. 3). Porter et al. do not explicitly disclose that the shroud is configured to house a filter, or that the spout is vertically aligned with the drain located in the basin (instead, Porter et al. disclose a spout vertically aligned with a separate drain 112; Col. 4, lines 34-36; Fig. 1).
Leeds et al. teach a water dispensing station (200, Fig. 2) with a bottle filler (210) having a shroud (outer covering of 210, including access door 234) configured to house a filter (Col. 3, lines 12-25). Leeds et al. teach that a bottle filler with a shroud having an access door facilitates replacement of the filter (Col. 1, lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the shroud of the combined invention of Porter et al.-Locke et al. with a door, providing access to a filter (the filter unit as described in claim 1) housed within the shroud, in order to facilitate replacement of the filter unit.
Porter et al.-Locke et al.-Leeds et al. in combination thus teach all the features of the claimed invention except a spout that is vertically aligned with the drain.
Cushman et al. teach a water dispensing station (10, Figs. 1 and 5) with a basin (40) having a connection mount (42), a drain (56), and a bottle filler (170) with a spout (176) that is vertically aligned with the drain when the bottle filler is mounted to the connection mount of the basin (see Fig. 5; Col. 6, line 66 - Col. 7, line 13). Cushman et al. teach that the disclosed configuration provides more convenient use of the bottle filler for disabled users (Col. 2, lines 58-63; Col. 7, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the water dispensing station of the combined invention of Porter et al.-Locke et al.-Leeds et al., with a bottle filler having a spout that is vertically aligned with the drain in the basin, as taught by Cushman et al., in order to improve convenience for disabled users by arranging the bottle filler spout in a more accessible location. Doing so would simply require eliminating the separate bottle filler drain disclosed by Porter et al. and arranging the bottle filler to extend over the lowest point in the basin, a modification within the capabilities of one having ordinary skill in the art that would lead to predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Porter et al.-Locke et al.-Leeds et al.-Cushman et al. in combination disclose the water dispensing station of claim 19. Porter et al. further discloses protruding surfaces that extend radially outward from a drain (see Figs. 1-2; at least a portion of the protruding surfaces are illustrated as radially extending from the drain) to define a resting surface for a bottle during a filling process, but does not disclose the protruding surfaces extending from the drain in the basin.
However, when modifying the combined invention to have a single drain located in the basin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the same protruding surfaces extending radially outward from the drain in the basin, thus arriving at the claimed invention. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying this feature to the drain in the basin in order to perform the same function with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Locke reference, Applicant argues that limitations of claim 14 regarding the printed circuit board configuration are not satisfied because “A filter can be physically present (Locke detects the presence of a filter) but water may not actually be flowing through the filter (e.g., valve in bypass mode, filter improperly seated, flow interrupted)” and that “this distinction is structural in effect, as the claimed PCB must assess an active filtration state, not merely the presence of a filter cartridge” (Remarks, Page 5, first full paragraph). Examiner has reviewed the specification (in particular, Paragraphs 0019 and 0076) but support for such a distinction was not found (e.g., a structure for detecting a bypass mode or improper seating of the filter), as noted in the Interview Summary dated 4/23/2026. Thus, Examiner maintains that the device disclosed by Locke is configured in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Regarding the amendment to claim 14, Applicant argues that the Porter reference does not disclose “a guide fin, or any equivalent alignment feature, configured to engage the lip of that elevated surface” (Remarks, Page 6, second full paragraph). Examiner acknowledges that the structural features described in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Porter differ from that described in the instant application, but notes that the function of each appears to be similar (i.e., to facilitate alignment of the bottle filler, as described in Paragraph 0080 of the instant application, and as noted in the above cited passage of Porter). If Applicant wishes to distinguish the instant invention from the prior art, the relevant structures should be further delineated in the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of water dispensing stations having features relevant to the guide fin/lip limitations of claim 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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 C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights