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 .
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 7-10 and 120-121 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 7 is indefinite because it is outside the scope of claim 1 rendering the meets and bounds of the claim unclear. This is because claim 1 recites “a delivery tube “coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink system”” yet claim 7 recites “the delivery tube is “connected to a plurality of appliances”. Claim 1 is specific to a sink system yet claim 7 is open to any appliances.
Claim 8 is indefinite because “the plumbing system” lacks antecedent basis since a plumbing system has never been recited before (plumbing system canceled from claim 7).
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is outside the scope of claim 1 rendering the meets and bounds of the claim unclear. This is because claim 1 recites “a delivery tube coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe “of a sink system”” yet claim 9 recites ““the delivery tube is configured to be coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe through “a plumbing system”. Claim 1 is specific to a sink system yet claim 9 is open to any plumbing system.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is outside the scope of claim 1 rendering the meets and bounds of the claim unclear. This is because claim 1 recites “a delivery tube “coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink system”” yet claim 10 recites “the delivery tube is configured to be coupled to “an upstream side of a tail pipe through a drain””. Claim 1 is specific to a downstream side and sink system yet claim 10 is specific to an upstream side and drain.
Claim 120 is indefinite because it is outside the scope of claim 115 rendering the meets and bounds of the claim unclear. This is because claim 115 recites “coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink of the plumbing system” yet claim 120 recites “connected to a plurality of appliances”. Claim 115 is specific to a sink system yet claim 120 is open to any appliances.
Claim 121 is indefinite because it depends on an indefinite 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 1-4, 7, 9-10, 115-118 and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn (US 2021/0139326) in view of Munn (US 10738446).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Lynn teaches in figures 1-3 (and the description of the figures in the specification of the reference) and sections [0027], [0030]-[0034] and [0049] a system for controlling biofilm buildup (sections [0057], [0068]) comprising ozone supply units 200 (read on the claimed “supply container configured to store one or more materials for a formation of a disinfectant), ozone generators 206 (read on “a disinfectant generator configured to generate the disinfectant from the one or more materials from the supply container); a power source (212) coupled to the ozone generators (reads on “a power source configured to provide electrical power to the disinfectant generator); and a distribution system for supplying the ozonated fluid to one or more application for cleaning (i.e. control biofilm) by way of one or more taps (section [0067]) (reads on “a delivery tube configured to transport the disinfectant from the disinfectant generator to a biofilm).
Lynn fails to teach that the “delivery tube is coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink system.” (claim 1); the “delivery tube is configured to be coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe through a plumbing system.” (claim 9); and the “delivery tube is configured to be coupled to an upstream side of a tail pipe through a drain.” (claim 10).
Munn teaches in column 1, line 65-column 2, line 34, column 2, lines 41-50, claim 1 and figure 1 that it is well known in the art, when disinfecting the interior of plumbing system (i.e. pipe) for a sink, to disinfect either the upstream or downstream section of the pipe (plumbing system) (i.e. coupling a disinfecting agent to either the upstream or downstream section)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach the distribution system of Lynn to an upstream or a downstream side of a pipe (any pipe including a tail pipe) of a sink system or plumbing system because according to Munn it is well known in the art to disinfect either an upstream side or downstream side of a drain pipe. Although this reference might use a different disinfecting mechanism, this reference is only used to establish that either an upstream or downstream side of a pipe can be disinfected. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to disinfect any part of plumbing system in order to control the buildup of pathogens throughout the system absent clear evidence otherwise. Munn, clearly teaches in column 2, lines 47-50 that the disinfecting device is known to be “positioned along a drain pipe to expose most or all of the internal surfaces of the drain pipe”. With this teaching, one skilled in the art would have clearly found it obvious to position the disinfecting device at a location that would, as Munn states, “expose most or all of the internal surfaces of the drain pipe” absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 2 Lynn teaches ozone supply units 200 (this reads on “disinfectant is ozone”).
Regarding claim 3, Lynn teaches in section [0033] that water can be used to generate the ozone used by flowing water (supplied by a supply unit) over the surface of an anode in an electrochemical cell which breaks the water to ozone (reads on “the one or more materials for the formation of the disinfectant includes water).
Regarding claim 4, Lynn teaches in sections [0031] and [0035] that a gas (air) is throughput through the ozone generators (reads on “the one or more materials for the formation of the disinfectant includes gas”). In addition, ozone is a gas.
Regarding claim 7, Lynn teaches in section [0067] and figure 4 (also see description of this figure in the reference specification) that the taps (distribution system (see claim 1 above)) can be used for cleaning various equipment and specifically mention plumbing systems, thus the taps (which reads on a plumbing system) inherently are connected to various appliances (see figure 4) for supplying the disinfectant (reads on “the delivery tube is connected to a plurality of appliances and transports the disinfectant to the plurality of appliances”) absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 115, Lynn teaches in figures 1-3 (and the description of the figures in the specification of the reference) and sections [0027], [0030]-[0034] and [0049] a system for controlling biofilm buildup (sections [0057], [0068]) comprising ozone supply units 200 (read on claimed “supply container configured to store one or more materials for a formation of a disinfectant), ozone generators 206 (read on “a disinfectant generator configured to generate the disinfectant from the one or more materials from the supply container); a power source (212) coupled to the ozone generators (reads on “a power source configured to provide electrical power to the disinfectant generator); and distribution system for supplying the ozonated fluid to one or more application for cleaning (i.e. control biofilm) by way of one or more taps (section [0067]) (reads on “a delivery tube configured to transport the disinfectant from the disinfectant generator to a biofilm). Regarding the preamble limitation “A plumbing system” the reference teaches in section [0067] and figure 4 (also see description of this figure in the reference specification) that the taps (distribution system) can be used for cleaning various equipment and specifically mentions plumbing systems (which reads on a plumbing system).
Lynn fails to teach that the “delivery tube is coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink of the plumbing system.”
Munn teaches in column 1, line 65-column 2, line 34, column 2, lines 41-50, claim 1 and figure 1 that it is well known in the art, when disinfecting the interior of plumbing system (i.e. pipe) for a sink, to disinfect either the upstream or downstream section of the pipe (plumbing system) (i.e. coupling a disinfecting agent to either the upstream or downstream section)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach the distribution system of Lynn to an upstream or a downstream side of a pipe (any pipe including a tail pipe) of a sink system (of a plumbing system) because according to Munn it is well known in the art to disinfect either an upstream side or downstream side of a drain pipe. Although this reference might use a different disinfecting mechanism, this reference is only used to establish that either an upstream or downstream side of a pipe can be disinfected. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to disinfect any part of plumbing system in order to control the buildup of pathogens throughout the system absent clear evidence otherwise. Munn, clearly teaches in column 2, lines 47-50 that the disinfecting device is known to be “positioned along a drain pipe to expose most or all of the internal surfaces of the drain pipe”. With this teaching one skilled in the art would have clearly found it obvious to position the disinfecting device at a location that would, as Munn states, “expose most or all of the internal surfaces of the drain pipe” absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 116, Lynn teaches ozone supply units 200 (this reads on “disinfectant is ozone”).
Regarding claim 117, Lynn teaches in section [0033] that water can be used to generate the ozone used by flowing water (supplied by a supply unit) over the surface of an anode in an electrochemical cell which breaks the water to ozone (reads on “the one or more materials for the formation of the disinfectant includes water).
Regarding claim 118, Lynn teaches in sections [0031] and [0035] that a gas (air) is throughput through the ozone generators (reads on “the one or more materials for the formation of the disinfectant includes gas”). In addition, ozone is a gas.
Regarding claim 120, Lynn teaches in section [0067] and figure 4 (also see description of this figure in the reference specification) that the taps (distribution system (see claim 115 above)) can be used for cleaning various equipment and specifically mention plumbing systems, thus the taps (which reads on a plumbing system) are connected to various appliances (see figure 4) for supplying the disinfectant (reads on “the plumbing system is connected to a plurality of appliances and transports the disinfectant to the plurality of appliances”) absent clear evidence otherwise.
Claims 5, 8, 119 and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn (US Pat No 2021/0139326) in view of Munn (US 10738446) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Joshi et al. (US 20110085934).
Lynn in view of Munn discloses the limitations set forth above. Lynn discloses increasing the oxidation reduction potential for pathogenic control [0002].
Regarding claim 5, Lynn in view of Munn fails to teach that the disinfectant includes hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid, or silver ions.
Joshi et al. teaches in the abstract and section [0031] that ozone and hydrogen peroxide are known materials to be used for sterilizing (i.e. type of disinfecting). Joshi teaches ozone and hydrogen peroxide produce oxidizing radicals to disrupt the life cycle of living organisms and destroy odors as well as to sterilize objects in various environments. (Abstract)(i.e. increasing the oxidation reduction potential).
It would have been obvious to use hydrogen peroxide as an additional disinfectant (in addition to ozone) or in place of ozone in the teaching of Lynn because this is another known disinfecting material for increasing the oxidation reduction potential as shown by Joshi et al. and will further increase the oxidation reduction potential of Lynn. Further it is prima facie obvious to (1) combine two or more materials disclosed by the prior art to form a third material (combination of ozone and hydrogen peroxide) that is to be used for the same purpose and/or (2) it prima facie obvious to substitute one material (hydrogen peroxide) for another (ozone) because substituting equivalents for the same purpose is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose).
Regarding claim 8, Lynn in view of Munn fails to at least one valve for release of the disinfectant.
Joshi et al. teaches in section [0026] that it is known to use a valve to dispense (release) the sterilizing/disinfecting material by turning on and off the flow of said material when needed.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a valve in the teachings of Lynn in order to dispense (release) the disinfecting material by turning on and off the flow of said material when needed as shown by Joshi et al. It is to be noted that Lynn refers to taps and flow switches in section [0067] and claim 1 and thus the flow of the disinfectant is implied and the use of any know mechanism to control the flow is clearly within the level of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of clear evidence otherwise. If one did not need to disinfect one of the appliances one skilled in the art would clearly understand that disabling the flow (by using a valve) is a conventional way to stop the flow to one piece of equipment while keeping the disinfectant flowing to the other pieces of equipment.
Regarding claim 119, Lynn in view of Munn fails to teach that the disinfectant includes hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid, or silver ions.
Lynn in view of Munn discloses the limitations set forth above. Lynn discloses increasing the oxidation reduction potential for pathogenic control [0002].
Joshi et al. teaches in the abstract and section [0031] that ozone and hydrogen peroxide are known materials to be used for sterilizing (i.e. type of disinfecting). Josh teaches ozone and hydrogen peroxide produce oxidizing radicals to disrupt the life cycle of living organisms and destroy odors as well as to sterilize objects in various environments. (Abstract)(i.e. increasing the oxidation reduction potential).
It would have been obvious to use hydrogen peroxide as an additional disinfectant (in addition to ozone) or in place of ozone in the teaching of Lynn because this is another known disinfecting material for increasing the oxidation reduction potential as shown by Joshi et al. and will further increase the oxidation reduction potential of Lynn. Further it is prima facie obvious to (1) combine two or more materials disclosed by the prior art to form a third material (combination of ozone and hydrogen peroxide) that is to be used for the same purpose and/or (2) it prima facie obvious to substitute one material (hydrogen peroxide) for another (ozone) because substituting equivalents for the same purpose is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose).
Regarding claim 121, Lynn in view of Munn fails to at least one valve for release of the disinfectant.
Joshi et al. teaches in section [0026] that it is known to use a valve to dispense (release) the sterilizing/disinfecting material by turning on and off the flow of said material when needed.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a valve in the teachings of Lynn in order to dispense (release) the disinfecting material by turning on and off the flow of said material when needed as shown by Joshi et al. It is to be noted that Lynn refers to taps and flow switches in section [0067] and claim 1 and thus the flow of the disinfectant is implied and the use of any know mechanism to control the flow is clearly within the level of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of clear evidence otherwise. If one did not need to disinfect one of the appliances one skilled in the art would clearly understand that disabling the flow (by using a valve) is a conventional way to stop the flow to one piece of equipment while keeping the disinfectant flowing to the other pieces of equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments filed 3/24/26 filed in conjunction with the amended claims, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-10, 115-118 and 120 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0139326 ("Lynn") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejections are applicable and necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
(1) Lynn (US Pat No 2021/0139326) in view of Munn (US 10738446) for claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 115-118 and 120; and
(2) Lynn (US Pat No 2021/0139326) in view of Munn (US 10738446) and Joshi et al. (US 20110085934) for claims 5, 8, 119 and 121.
In as much as the current rejection still relies on Lynn, Munn and Joshi et al., although the 102 rejection is withdrawn because Lynn fails to teach "a delivery tube coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink system” and configured to transport the disinfectant from the disinfectant generator to a biofilm. (claim 1) and "a delivery tube coupled to a downstream side of a tail pipe of a sink of the plumbing system” and configured to transport the disinfectant from the disinfectant generator to a biofilm." (claim 115), the 103 rejection applied using Munn clearly made this feature obvious (this was clearly specified in the previous office action as alternative rejections (see page 18 of the office action dated 12/31/25)). Applicants only argument regarding the combination of Lynn with Munn (and Joshi et al.) is that “Applicants submit that neither Joshi nor Munn can provide the subject matter lacking from Lynn as described above”. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references (i.e. the combined references as applied in the previous office action). In other words, no clear arguments are presented rebutting the examiners obviousness reasoning for the combination as applied to the claims.
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 Michael A Marcheschi whose telephone number is (571)272-1374. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, TH, F 830-630, Off Every WED.
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.
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 A. MARCHESCHI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights