DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 8th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8, 115-119 and 121 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.
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 121 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.
Claim 121 recites the limitation "the plurality of appliances" in line 3. 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 115-119 and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido Martinez (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0332576) in view of Guo (Document Identification No. CN110777890 A) and Kim (Document Identification No. KR 20070053591 A).
Concerning claims 1-4, 8, 115-118 and 121, Garrido Martinez discloses a plumbing system including a biofilm mitigation apparatus (Abstract; Figures 1 & 2; paragraph 32), the plumbing system and apparatus comprising:
A supply container (82) configured to store one or more disinfectants, wherein the one or more disinfectants are transferred to the plumbing system (paragraphs 32, 51, 52, 56 & 57);
A power source configured to provide electrical power to the disinfectant generator (paragraphs 27 & 28); and
a delivery tube (24) coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink (6) of the plumbing system and configured to transport the disinfectant from the disinfectant generator to a biofilm (Figure 2; paragraphs 56 & 59).
Garrido Martinez does not appear to disclose a first valve configured to close off the tail pipe of the sink system to downstream plumbing when the disinfectant is provided to the tail pipe, or a second valve configured to release the disinfectant to at least one of the plurality of appliances. Guo discloses a plumbing system and biofilm mitigation process that includes providing a disinfectant to the downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink of the plumbing system (Figures 1-4; Abstract). The reference continues to disclose a first valve (13) configured to close off the tail pipe of the sink system to downstream plumbing when the disinfectant is provided to the tail pipe, and a second valve (6, or 11 or 12) configured to release the disinfectant to at least one of a plurality of appliances in order to trap the disinfectant within the piping of the plumbing system to allow the disinfectant to disinfect the biofilm (Abstract; Figures 1-4; page 2, lines 17-34; page 3, lines 4-38). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plumbing system and biofilm mitigation apparatus of Garrido Martinez with a first valve configured to close off the tail pipe of the sink system to downstream plumbing when the disinfectant is provided to the tail pipe, and a second valve configured to release the disinfectant to at least one of a plurality of appliances in order to hold the disinfectant within the piping of the plumbing system for a sufficient amount of time to allow the disinfectant to disinfect the biofilm as exemplified by Guo. As such, these limitations are not patentable over Garrido Martinez in view of Guo.
Garrido Martinez also does not appear to disclose a disinfectant generator configured to generate the disinfectant from one or more formation materials from the supply container. Kim discloses a plumbing system that includes a biofilm mitigation apparatus (Abstract; Figure 1), wherein the plumbing system and apparatus includes a supply container (1/5) to store water or a gas (concerning claims 3, 4, 117 & 118; page 3, lines 24-32), and tube piping coupled to further piping (2) of the plumbing system (page 3, lines 30-35; page 4, lines 6-11). The reference continues to disclose that the plumbing system and biofilm mitigation apparatus further includes a disinfectant generator (3/4/8) configured to generate the disinfectant from one or more water or gas (page 3, lines 23-32) formation materials from the supply container (1/5) in order to create an odorless ozone (concerning claims 2 & 116) disinfectant with a high concentration (page 3, lines 24-30; page 4, lines 14-29) that can affectively disinfect the pipes of a plumbing system without the use of dangerous chemicals (page 2, lines 23-43). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the disinfectant generating system of Kim that includes a disinfectant generator configured to generate the disinfectant from one or more water or gas formation materials from the supply container in order to create an odorless ozone disinfectant with a high concentration that can affectively disinfect the pipes of a plumbing system without the use of dangerous chemicals as exemplified by Kim. Thus, these limitations are not patentable over Garrido Martinez in view of Kim.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 8, 115-118 and 121 are not patentable over Garrido Martinez in view of Guo and Kim.
Concerning claims 5 & 119, the disinfectant is not actually positively recited in independent claims 1 and 115, but merely a “supply container configured to store one or more disinfectants”, and “a disinfectant generator configured to generate the disinfectant…” As noted above, Garrido Matinez in view of Guo and Kim discloses these limitations. As such, the further limiting of a component that is not positively recited will not provide a patentable distinction over Garrido Matinez in view of Guo and Kim because the references of Garrido Matinez in view of Guo and Kim are fully capable of having the disinfectant include hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid, or silver ions (See Figures 1 & 2 of Garrido Martinez; Figures 1-4 of Guo; and Figure 1 of Kim).
Thus, claims 5 & 119 are rejected over Garrido Matinez in view of Guo and Kim as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights