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 amendments filed 10/3/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, and 5-27 are pending. A search for amended claim 1 revealed prior art relevant to previously indicated as allowable claim 6. In view of that, this action is made non final and claim 6 is now rejected.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been considered.
The new claim limitations are addressed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), and St. Onge (WO 03/033402).
With regards to claim 1, Rosko et al. teaches a faucet (abstract) comprising: a spout (12) including a waterway defining an outlet (flow through the spout to the outlet); at least one valve in fluid communication with the waterway of the spout (valve 60); a controller (136) in communication with the at least one valve (para [0137]-[0144]); a disinfectant device (58) fluidly coupled to the waterway spout, the faucet being selectively flow fluid through the disinfection device in response to an input to the controller (opens the flow path through the disinfection device during treatment mode in response to user touch) (para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]); a mode indicator in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); a user interface (134) in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the fountain is configured to selectively operate in a treatment mode and anon treatment mode in response to input to the user interface (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17 and 18); wherein the mode indicator provides indication to a user when the faucet is in the treatment mode (at least operating status of the treatment device 58; para [0125])(fig 17 and 18; see whole document).
Rosko et al. does not teach a first and second electrolytic ozone generator that are alternatively activated by the controller. Ishida et al. teaches providing two ozone generators which can be alternatively operated to extend their lifespan or can be operated simultaneously to boost the amount of ozone produced. The two ozone generators can be arranged in series (para [0008]-[0010]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided two electrolytic ozone generators in series in order to allow for alternative operation to extend the lifespan of the generators and to allow for a boost mode. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have operated the ozone generators alternatively in order to extend their lifespan and automate the operation of the system.
The combination does not specify “wherein each electrolytic ozone generator includes a first housing, an anode coupled to the first housing, a second housing, a cathode coupled to the second housing, and a separator positioned between the anode and the cathode”. Yost et al. provides a specific teaching of the structure of an electrolytic ozone generator (abstract). Yost et al. teaches wherein each electrolytic ozone generator includes a first housing (anode frame 106), an anode (101) coupled to the first housing, a second housing (cathode frame 107), a cathode (102) coupled to the second housing, and a separator (membrane 105) positioned between the anode and the cathode (para [0032]-[0034]; fig 1A and 1B).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have supplied the electrolytic ozone water generator taught by Yost et al. as the ozone generators motivated by an expectation of successfully providing ozone generators with improved functionality as taught by Yost.
The combination does not teach a sensor as claimed. St. Onge teaches an ozone water system (abstract). St. Onge further teaches using sensors to monitor ozone concentration in outputted water stream and alerting users to malfunctions including that the ozone concentration is too low. In response to a malfunction, various components including the ozone generator are turned off and diagnostics are ran (page 4, line 14 to page 5, line 7). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used an ozone concentration sensor connected to the controller to determine if ozone is too low and shut the ozone generator off if it is too low so that the system can run diagnostics to address the malfunction.
The combination results in at least one sensor in communication with the controller and configured to detect the status of the first electrolytic ozone generator and the second electrolytic ozone generator by sensing water discharged therefrom (detects functionality through the output ozone).
With regards to claim 2, the treated water passes through the disinfectant device in the treatment mode and non-treated water bypasses the disinfectant device in the non-treatment mode (para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17).
With regards to claim 5, the combination above results in the first and second ozone generators being in serial fluid communication.
With regards to claim 7, the mode indicator is a visual indicator (LED display; para [0125]).
With regards to claim 8, the mode indicator is a light emitting device (LED display; para [0125]).
With regards to claim 10, Rosko et al. does not teach a specific location for the indicator display. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the display in any position (including on the spout 12 of the faucet) where it is visible to the user motivated by an expectation of successfully providing notifications to a user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), and St. Onge (WO 03/033402) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Kessener et al. (US 4,901,922).
With regards to claims 9, the combination does not teach a light emitting device that illuminates the water as claimed. Kessener et al. teaches illuminating water with different light color or intensity in order to indicate a status of the water to be used for hand washing, ie the temperature of the water (abstract; column 1, lines 59-68). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have a light emitter illuminate the water to be used for handwashing based on the temperature of the water in order to provide a visual indication for the user. Illuminating the water to show temperature during use of the water would result in the water being lit by the illuminating device when the faucet is operating in the treatment mode.
Additionally and alternatively, Kessenger et al. broadly teaching indicating a status of the water with different light colors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to illuminate the water in different colors to indicate relevant information about the water including being ozonated in order to provide visual indicators for the user.
Claim(s) 11, 18-20, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), and St. Onge (WO 03/033402) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Glenn et al. (US 2010/0326472).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination does not teach a sensor as claimed. Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a controller configured to determine hand washing compliance along with using a proximity sensor for detecting the hands near the spout (para [0064], [0069], [0104] explains that the cleaning station can provide a video alarm indicating "Successful Cleaning" or "Warning Cleaning Failed".). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification to ensure proper handwashing (paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 18, Rosko teaches a user interface (LED display) but does not teach that it indicates a user’s compliance with hand hygiene protocols. Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a user interface including a compliance indicator configured to display a representation of a user's compliance with hand hygiene protocols (Paragraph 0104 explains that the cleaning station can provide a video alarm indicating "Successful Cleaning" or "Warning Cleaning Failed".).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the compliance indicator provides a visual pass/fail indication of compliance with hand hygiene protocols.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a compliance indicator providing a visual pass/fail indication of compliance with hand hygiene protocols (Paragraph 0104 explains that the cleaning station can provide a video alarm indicating "Successful Cleaning" or "Warning Cleaning Failed".).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout (Paragraph 0069 describes optical · sensor 216 initiating a cleaning cycle and determining the duration of the washing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 20, but does not explicitly disclose wherein data regarding the amount of time that the user's hands are in the water stream is stored in a remote database.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches wherein data regarding the amount of time that the user's hands are in the water stream is stored in a remote database (Employee record 340, which may contain information about duration of washing, may be maintained centrally at an administration computer 104. FIGS. SA and 58; paragraph 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an identification device for determining the identity of a user.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches an identification device for determining the identity of a user (User tag 208 is read by RFID reader 212 when user 204 approaches and/or begins using cleaning station 100a.
paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799), Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), St. Onge (WO 03/033402), and Glenn et al. (US 2010/0326472) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Belz et al. (US 2012/0055557).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor includes an in-water sensor configured to detect a user's hands in a water stream delivered from the outlet of the spout.
Belz is directed to a faucet including a capacitance based sensor (title) and teaches an in-water sensor configured to detect a user's hands in a water stream delivered from the outlet of a spout (capacitive sensor 26 for providing signals to controller 24 indicating the detection of a user's hands near or on spout 12; FIG. 1; paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Beilz for the purpose of providing consistent and reliable on/off control of the faucet throughout the life of the product (paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the in-water sensor is configured to detect a user's hands moving in the water stream delivered from the outlet of the spout.
Belz is directed to a faucet including a capacitance based sensor (title) and teaches an in-water sensor configured to detect a user's hands moving in the water stream delivered from the outlet of the spout (FIG. 4 shows a graph of an exemplary output signal of the capacitive sensor illustrating changes in the output signal upon the detection of an object such as a user's hands moving in a detection zone of the sensor. paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Belz for the purpose of providing consistent and reliable on/off control of the faucet throughout the life of the product (paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination discloses the faucet of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the in-water sensor includes a capacitive sensor.
Belz is directed to a faucet including a capacitance based sensor (title) and teaches an in-water sensor including a capacitive sensor (capacitive sensor 26 for providing signals to controller 24 indicating the detection of a user's hands near or on spout 12; FIG. 1; paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Belz for the purpose of providing consistent and reliable on/off control of the faucet throughout the life of the product (paragraph 0005).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), and St. Onge (WO 03/033402) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koganezawa et al. (US 6,135,146).
With regards to claim 16, Rosko teaches a user interface (touch display) but does not teach that the user interface includes a time indicator to display the time water is discharged from the spout.
Koganezawa discloses a faucet (abstract) and teaches a user interface in communication with the controller (LED arrays 11 and 12; FIG. 3; col. 4, lines 42-46), the user interface including a time indicator configured to display a representation of the time water is discharged from the outlet of the spout (LED array 11 indicates a remaining time in a pre-cleaning period of time and LED array indicating a remaining time in an ozone-water sterilization period of time; col. 4, lines 42-46). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have displayed a representation of the time the water has run or will run in order to inform the user about the operation of the faucet.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799), Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), St. Onge (WO 03/033402), and Koganezawa et al. (US 6,135,146) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Slob (US 3,987,617).
With regards to claim 17, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the time indicator includes a circular dial including a plurality of sectors that are selectively illuminated based upon the time that water is discharged from the outlet of the spout.
Slob is directed to a display device for a counting mechanism, such as a clock or watch (title) and teaches a time indicator including a circular dial including a plurality of sectors that are selectively illuminated (time displayed by means of three concentric rings, the inner ring 1 comprising 24 positions for displaying whole and half hours, the central ring 2 comprising 60 positions for displaying minutes,, and the outer ring comprising 60 positions for displaying seconds (col. 2, lines 40-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Koganezawa with the teaching of Slob for the purpose displaying the time that water is discharged from the outlet of the spout, the motivation being to provide a display device having a minimum number of connections (col. 1, lines 29-41).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799), Ishida et al. (JP H1128483)(English machine translation), Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478), St. Onge (WO 03/033402), and Glenn et al. (US 2010/0326472) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Koganezawa et al. (US 6,135,146).
With regards to claim 21, Rosko teaches a user interface (touch display) but does not teach that the user interface includes a time indicator to display the time water is discharged from the spout.
Koganezawa discloses a faucet (abstract) and teaches a user interface in communication with the controller (LED arrays 11 and 12; FIG. 3; col. 4, lines 42-46), the user interface including a time indicator configured to display a representation of the time water is discharged from the outlet of the spout (LED array 11 indicates a remaining time in a pre-cleaning period of time and LED array indicating a remaining time in an ozone-water sterilization period of time; col. 4, lines 42-46). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have displayed a representation of the time the water has run or will run in order to inform the user about the operation of the faucet.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of time that a user's hands are in the water stream.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a controller configured to provide an indication of the amount of time that a user's hands are in the water stream (Paragraph 0070 describes an exemplary station-use record 336 having data associated with a plurality of users, including an employee name and a duration 408 of how long the user 204 kept his or her hands in the washbasin 408. FIG. 4; paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of St. Onge (WO 03/033402), Marion (US 2013/0341285), and Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478).
With regards to claim 15, Rosko et al. teaches a faucet (abstract) comprising: a spout (12) including a waterway defining an outlet (flow through the spout to the outlet); at least one valve in fluid communication with the waterway of the spout (valve 60); a controller (136) in communication with the at least one valve (para [0137]-[0144]); a disinfectant device (58) fluidly coupled to the waterway spout, the faucet being selectively flow fluid through the disinfection device in response to an input to the controller (opens the flow path through the disinfection device during treatment mode in response to user touch) (para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]); a mode indicator in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); a user interface (134) in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the fountain is configured to selectively operate in a treatment mode and anon treatment mode in response to input to the user interface (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17 and 18); wherein the mode indicator provides indication to a user when the faucet is in the treatment mode (at least operating status of the treatment device 58; para [0125])(fig 17 and 18; see whole document).
Rosko et al. does not teach an oxidation reduction potential sensor or deactivating the ozone generator if the ORP is below a set level. St. Onge teaches an ozone water system (abstract). St. Onge further teaches using sensors to monitor ozone concentration and alerting users to malfunctions including that the ozone concentration is too low. In response to a malfunction, various components including the ozone generator are turned off and diagnostics are ran (page 4, line 14 to page 5, line 7). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used an ozone concentration sensor to determine if ozone is too low and shut the ozone generator off if it is too low so that the system can run diagnostics to address the malfunction.
St. Onge does not teach that the ozone sensor is an ORP sensor. Marion teaches a system for generating ozone water (abstract). Marion uses a controller (190) and a oxidation reduction potential sensor (ozone sensor 114) to monitor and detect ozone concentration (abstract; para [0047], [0048], [0063], see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an ORP sensor as the ozone concentration sensor motivated by an expectation of successfully monitoring and ensuring that the ozone concentration is as desired.
The combination results in an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) sensor in communication with the controller and configured to detect the status of the electrolytic ozone generator (on/off and working properly or not) by sensing the ORP in water discharged from the electrolytic ozone generator, wherein the controller deactivates the electrolytic ozone generator if the ORP is below a set level (ozone too low).
The combination does not teach that the controller reverses voltage and current to the ozone generator in periodic intervals to prevent lime build-up and keep the ozone generator clean. Yost et al. teaches an electrolytic cell for ozone generation and teaches reversing the polarity of voltages to the ozone generator periodically to combat scale build up (abstract and para [0070]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the controller reverse the polarity of the voltage to the ozone generator periodically to combat scale build up automatically.
The combination results in the controller reverses voltage and current (reversing voltage also reverses the current) to the ozone generator in periodic intervals to prevent lime build-up and keep the ozone generator clean.
Claim(s) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Kessener et al. (US 4,901,922).
With regards to claim 24, Rosko et al. teaches a faucet (abstract) comprising: a spout (12) including a waterway defining an outlet (flow through the spout to the outlet); at least one valve in fluid communication with the waterway of the spout (valve 60); a controller (136) in communication with the at least one valve (para [0137]-[0144]); a disinfectant device (58) fluidly coupled to the waterway spout, the faucet being selectively flow fluid through the disinfection device in response to an input to the controller (opens the flow path through the disinfection device during treatment mode in response to user touch) (para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]); a mode indicator in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); a user interface (134) in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the fountain is configured to selectively operate in a treatment mode and a non-treatment mode in response to input to the user interface (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17 and 18); wherein the mode indicator provides indication to a user when the faucet is in the treatment mode (at least operating status of the treatment device 58; para [0125])(fig 17 and 18; see whole document). The mode indicator is a light emitting device (LED display; para [0125]).
Rosko et al. does not teach a specific location for the indicator display. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the display in any position (including on the spout 12 of the faucet) where it is visible to the user motivated by an expectation of successfully providing notifications to a user.
Rosko et al. does not teach a light emitting device that illuminates the water as claimed. Kessener et al. teaches illuminating water with different light color or intensity in order to indicate a status of the water to be used for hand washing, ie the temperature of the water (abstract; column 1, lines 59-68). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have a light emitter illuminate the water to be used for handwashing based on the temperature of the water in order to provide a visual indication for the user. Illuminating the water to show temperature during use of the water would result in the water being lit by the illuminating device when the faucet is operating in the treatment mode.
Additionally and alternatively, Kessenger et al. broadly teaching indicating a status of the water with different light colors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to illuminate the water in different colors to indicate relevant information about the water including being ozonated in order to provide visual indicators for the user.
Rosko teaches a user interface (LED display) but does not teach that it indicates a user’s compliance with hand hygiene protocols. Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a user interface including a compliance indicator configured to display a representation of a user's compliance with hand hygiene protocols (Paragraph 0104 explains that the cleaning station can provide a video alarm indicating "Successful Cleaning" or "Warning Cleaning Failed".).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout (Paragraph 0069 describes optical · sensor 216 initiating a cleaning cycle and determining the duration of the washing.). The compliance includes tracking the time the user allowed their hands to be washed (para [0087]). The compliance protocol check can be done on disinfection stations and sanitizer dispensers (para [0030]). The cleaning station can dispense one or more fluids including a disinfectant and the sufficient time is monitored (para [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to track the time that the sanitizing fluid is being dispensed on the user’s hands to ensure that sterilization occurs for a sufficient time.
The combination results in a sensor in communication with the controller and configured to detect a user's hands in proximity to the spout, the controller configured to determine hand washing compliance with hygiene protocols and provide a signal to the compliance indicator; and wherein the controller determines hand washing compliance with hygiene protocols is based upon duration of a user's hands in proximity to the spout when the faucet is in the treatment mode.
With regards to claim 25, the treated water passes through the disinfectant device in the treatment mode and non-treated water bypasses the disinfectant device in the non-treatment mode (para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17).
With regards to claim 26, the disinfectant device includes an antibacterial device (the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator; ozone is antibacterial; para [0065]).
With regards to claim 27, the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Yost et al. (US 2012/0138478).
With regards to claim 1, Rosko et al. teaches a faucet (abstract) comprising: a spout (12) including a waterway defining an outlet (flow through the spout to the outlet); at least one valve in fluid communication with the waterway of the spout (valve 60); a controller (136) in communication with the at least one valve (para [0137]-[0144]); a disinfectant device (58) fluidly coupled to the waterway spout, the faucet being selectively flow fluid through the disinfection device in response to an input to the controller (opens the flow path through the disinfection device during treatment mode in response to user touch) (para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]); a mode indicator in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); a user interface (134) in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the fountain is configured to selectively operate in a treatment mode and a non treatment mode in response to input to the user interface (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17 and 18); wherein the mode indicator provides indication to a user when the faucet is in the treatment mode (at least operating status of the treatment device 58; para [0125])(fig 17 and 18; see whole document).
The combination does not specify “wherein the ozone generator comprises: an outer cartridge; an electrolytic cell assembly received within the outer cartridge, the electrolytic cell assembly comprising: a first housing; an anode coupled to the first housing; a second housing; a cathode coupled to the second housing; a separator positioned between the anode and the cathode; and a holder that couples the first housing to the second housing independently of the outer cartridge”. Yost et al. provides a specific teaching of the structure of an electrolytic ozone generator (abstract). Yost et al. teaches wherein the electrolytic ozone generator includes an outer cartridge (pipe that is a tube or other housing in which the electrolytic cell is inserted); a first housing (anode frame 106), an anode (101) coupled to the first housing, a second housing (cathode frame 107), a cathode (102) coupled to the second housing, and a separator (membrane 105) positioned between the anode and the cathode and a holder (O-ring 109) that couples the first housing to the second housing independently of the outer cartridge (provides a compressive force to claim the frames together) (para [0032]-[0034]; fig 1A and 1B).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have supplied the electrolytic ozone water generator taught by Yost et al. as the ozone generator motivated by an expectation of successfully providing an ozone generator with improved functionality as taught by Yost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799