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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending
Claims 12-41 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-11 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/07/2023 and 06/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted inventions are not independent inventions and that examination of both claimed invention together would not present a serious burden on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41 has been adequately addressed in MPEP §802.01. Therein, it is stated that the legislative intent was to maintain the substantive law on the subject of restriction practice prior to enactment of 35 USC 121. Such practice permitted restriction between distinct, albeit dependent inventions. If the intent had been otherwise, then only the term “independent” would have been used. Thus, restriction between the distinct inventions set forth in this application is proper even though these inventions are clearly related.
With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 states “of the housing;” and instead should state “of the skeleton housing;” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “on each of the cartridges” and instead should state “on each of the first cartridge and the second cartridge” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 8 and 10 (x2) each state “the housing” and instead should each state “the skeleton housing” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 5 states “of water” and instead should state “of the water” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-11 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 "in second portion” on line 9. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a second portion’ as recited earlier on line 8 of claim 1, or a different second portion? Claims 2-11 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "of a cartridge” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing which cartridge Applicant is referring to, the first cartridge or the second cartridge?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "of a cartridge” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing which cartridge Applicant is referring to, the first cartridge or the second cartridge?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "with a cartridge” on line 2. It is unclear and confusing which cartridge Applicant is referring to, the first cartridge or the second cartridge?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "from a well in a hot tub.” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a water treatment well in a hot tub” as recited on line 5 of claim 1, or a different well in a hot tub? If Applicant is referring to the same, Examiner suggests to use same claim language for consistency.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second cartridge” on line 8. 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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (U.S. 2014/0158713 A1) (hereinafter “King”).
Regarding Claim 1:
King teaches an inline dispenser system (see FIG. 1, an inline dispenser 10) (see FIGS. 2 and 4) (see paragraphs 5, 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22) comprising:
a skeleton housing having a central axis and a set of openings therein for ingress or egress of water (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see paragraphs 10-12);
a handle (see FIG. 1, a cover 60 further including a set of handles 61) on said skeleton housing for insertion or removal of the skeleton housing from a water treatment system (see paragraph 4 further describing treatment of pool and spa water) (see paragraph 14 further describing a cover 60 further including a set of handles 61);
a first cartridge (see FIG. 1, a first flow stackable dispensing canister or cartridge 20) axially cradleable in a first portion of the skeleton housing with the first cartridge having a boss for axial positional engagement of the first cartridge in the first portion of the skeleton housing but not in a second portion of the housing (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22); and
a second cartridge (see FIG. 1, a second flow stackable dispensing canister or cartridge 30) cradleable in second portion of the skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Although King teaches an inline dispenser system, King does not explicitly teach for insertion or removal of the skeleton housing from a water treatment well in a hot tub, as recited in independent claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the inline dispensing system of King to be capable of treating pool and spa water from a water treatment well in a hot tub for optimization purposes and to remove unwanted contaminants from an unfiltered source (see MPEP 2115 regarding the material worked upon) (see paragraphs 4-5, 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 2:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 where the first portion of the skeleton housing contains a protrusion to prevent engagement of a cartridge without a recess for mating engagement with the protrusion (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 3:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 where the second portion of the skeleton housing contains a radial protrusion to prevent engagement of a cartridge without a mating recess therein (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 4:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 where the skeleton housing contains an arcuate rib to prevent engagement with a cartridge lacking an arcuate recess (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 5:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 including at least two protruding keys and at least two keyways on each of the cartridges and the skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 6:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 wherein the first cartridge contains a first set of mateable features, and the skeleton housing contains a second set of mateable features where the first set of mateable features is mateable with the second set of mateable features (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 7:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 wherein an axial position of an arcuate ridge on the first cartridge and a different axial position of an arcuate recess on the skeleton housing prevent mateable engagement of the first cartridge and the skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 8:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 including an open handle with a finger loop located on a cap of the skeleton housing with the handle useable for inserting or removing the skeleton housing from a well in a hot tub (see FIG. 1, a cover 60 further including a set of handles 61) (see paragraph 4 further describing treatment of pool and spa water) (see paragraph 14 further describing a cover 60 further including a set of handles 61).
Regarding Claim 9:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 wherein said second portion of said skeleton housing is axially offset from said first portion of said skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 10:
King teaches the inline dispenser system of claim 1 wherein the first cartridge and the second cartridge are flexuraly restrained by a resilient skeleton housing sidewall extending over 180 degrees around the first cartridge and the second cartridge (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Regarding Claim 11:
King teaches an inline dispenser system (see FIG. 1, an inline dispenser 10) (see FIGS. 2 and 4) (see paragraphs 5, 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22) comprising:
a skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see paragraphs 10-12), said skeleton housing having a partial circumferential side wall (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17) for maintaining at least two cartridges in an end-to-end dispensing condition as water flows along said skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a first flow stackable dispensing canister or cartridge 20) (see FIG. 1, a second flow stackable dispensing canister or cartridge 30), said partial circumferential side wall having openings therein for ingress and egress of the water into and out of the at least two cartridges that are cradleable held in the skeleton housing (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) with a first cartridge of the at least two cartridges insertable and cradleable held in either a first cradle position (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22) or a second cradle position within the skeleton housing with either the second cartridge (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22) or the skeleton housing having a key thereon to prevent insertion of the second cartridge into the first cradle position in the housing but not into the second cradle position in the skeleton housing to maintain an inline dispensing orientation of the first cartridge with respect to the second cartridge when the at least two cartridges are cradleable held in the skeleton housing (Examiner’s note: these claim limitations are in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see FIG. 1, a vertical column (forming a central axis) further including housings 15 and 17, an inlet end 11 and an outlet end 12) (see FIG. 1, a first cartridge 20 in a first portion/chamber 23 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 21 and 28, and sockets 11b, 12b) (see FIG. 1, a second cartridge 30 in a second portion/chamber 33 of the skeleton housing, further including extensions 31 and 38, and sockets 24, 26) (see paragraphs 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Although King teaches a side wall, a bottom, a top, an inlet end and an outlet end, King does not explicitly teach said partial circumferential side wall having openings therein for ingress and egress of the water into and out, as recited in independent claim 11.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the inline dispensing system of King to have the side wall include openings therein for ingress and egress of water in order to efficiently and effectively remove unwanted contaminants from a fluid source (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Rearrangement of Parts) (see paragraphs 4-5, 10-12, 14-17, 20 and 22).
Other References Considered
AFSHAR (U.S. 2021/0172188 A1) (hereinafter “Afshar”) teaches a multi-function pool skimmer water treatment device.
King et al. (U.S. 2004/0168963 A1) (hereinafter “King2”) teaches a dual dispenser.
King et al. (U.S. 2004/0108261 A1) (hereinafter “King3”) teaches a dispensing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773