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 .
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 28-29, 40 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 28 recites “an upper bottle portion” and “a lower bottle portion”, however these have already been established in claim 20 from which it depends. It is therefore unclear if these are the same or different components. For purposes of examination, these will be treated as the same components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-21, 23, 26-29, 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammarback (US 2017/0348448).
Hammarback shows a dental water supply system (Fig. 2), comprising a bottle configured to contain water for a dental water supply (11 in Fig. 2; [0042]), the bottle comprising an upper bottle portion (cap 17) including a neck (upper bottle portion 17 at height of opening 36) and a lower bottle portion (11) separable from the upper bottle portion, the upper bottle portion is configured to releasably couple to a treatment assembly (Fig. 8 and associated structure), the treatment assembly having a cross-section greater than an opening through the neck (treatment assembly larger than opening 36 in the neck); a treatment assembly (Fig. 8) configured to be positioned within the bottle (Fig. 2), the treatment assembly comprising an interior channel extending between an inlet and an outlet (channel holding material 68); a housing (structure surrounding the channel in Fig. 8) containing at least one of a silver-containing composition and an iodinated composition configured to treat water passing through the interior channel ([0007] discusses both iodine resin and silver compositions); and a twist lock fitting at the outlet configured to engage with a mating structure through a rotational motion to secure the treatment assembly to the mating structure without the use of tools (threading above 42 in Fig. 4 twists/rotates in complementary threading of 17 to lock/secure in position; capable of being attached without tools due to the threaded engagement). With respect to claim 21, wherein the treatment assembly further comprises a lower end cap at the inlet (at 59 in Fig. 8), the lower end cap defining one or more intake holes (near 64 and 67 in Fig. 8) opening from an exterior surface of the lower end cap to the interior channel (through 64 from 51). With respect to claim 23, wherein the treatment assembly further comprises one or more housing barrels connected in series (at 53 in Fig. 8), each housing barrel defining a portion of the interior channel and configured to contain a filtration or treatment composition (as seen in Fig. 8). With respect to claim 27, wherein the housing comprises a carbon portion configured to remove halogen ions from water passing through the interior channel before the water contacts the iodinated composition ([0045] discusses using charcoal, which is comprised of carbon, and therefore will remove halogen ions from water passing therethrough before reaching the silver media). With respect to claim 28, wherein the bottle’s upper bottle portion (cap 17) and lower bottle portion (11) have a sealed joint (sealed at 27 by twist locking the threads as seen in Fig. 4), the sealed joint providing for the upper bottle portion to be separated from the lower bottle portion by a user to access the treatment assembly (disassembly allows access to the treatment assembly when they are separated). With respect to claim 29, wherein the treatment assembly is accessible for maintenance or replacement when the upper bottle portion is separated from the lower bottle portion (unscrewing and separating 26 from 17 allows access to the treatment assembly due to the opening of 13 being larger than the cross-section of the treatment assembly).
Apparatus claims 36-39 are rejected similarly to the above and additionally a top cap (at 69 in Fig. 8), a housing barrel (at 52 in Fig. 8) connected in series with the top cap (Fig. 8), the housing barrel defining a portion of the interior channel and configured to contain a filtration or water treatment composition (at 68 in Fig. 8), and the twist lock fitting configured to engage through a partial rotation less than a full turn (the first turn of the twist lock fitting engages it with the mating structure, upon which it is further turned to make the full connection; it is also noted since only the treatment assembly itself is at issue in these claims, how many turns are required is entirely dependent on the structure to which it is being mated), as they have the same limitations minus the bottle and treatment composition. While it is noted that the water treatment composition of claim 39 is not positively recited, the treatment assembly of Hammarback utilizes silver-containing/iodinated composition as addressed above.
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 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammarback in view of Thomas (US 2022/0008177).
Hammarback discloses the device as previously described above and shows a filter positioned within the interior channel adjacent to the lower end cap (at 67 in Fig. 8) and that the filter configured to filter suspended particulate matter from water entering the interior channel ([0045]), but fails to show that the filter is a fiber filter.
Thomas similarly teaches a dental water filter device wherein a filter may be constructed of fibers ([0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hammarback’s device by utilizing known alternative fiber construction as taught by Thomas in order to take advantage of known alternative filter types in the art.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammarback in view of Ghazaryan (US 2020/0093581).
Hammarback discloses the device as previously described above and that the barrel housing is removably connected to adjacent components such that treatment assembly can be assembled and disassembled without the use of tools, but fails to show with respect to claim 24, housing barrel tabs configured to mate with corresponding receiver slots. Similarly with respect to claim 25, Hammarback fails to show wherein the twist lock fitting comprises an engagement channel configured to receive an engagement stud extending from the mating structure, such that the treatment assembly is secured by sliding the twist lock fitting over the mating structure and rotating the twist lock fitting.
Ghazaryan similarly teaches a filter unit for dental equipment wherein housing barrel tabs (16) configured to mate with corresponding receiver slots (10). Similarly with respect to claim 25, wherein the twist lock fitting between two body components comprises an engagement channel (10) configured to receive an engagement stud (16) extending from the mating structure (seen at either side of 4 in Fig. 2), such that the treatment assembly is secured by sliding the twist lock fitting over the mating structure (vertical opening of 10 first slidingly receives stud 16) and rotating the twist lock fitting (16 is then rotated within 10 to lock). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hammarback’s device by substituting the twist lock of Ghazaryan in order to take advantage of known alternative attachment means and provide quicker assembly and disassembly for access to a filter ([0035], [0038]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammarback in view of Hanson (US 6,279,782).
Hammarback discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show further comprising a locking mechanism to prevent disengagement of the upper bottle portion from the lower bottle portion.
Hanson similarly teaches a bottle (Fig. 1-5) with upper (20) and lower portions (1+4) with a locking mechanism (at 25 in Fig. 5) that prevents disengagement (col. 2, line 59 – col. 3, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hammarback’s engagement means by utilizing the twist and locking mechanism as taught by Hanson in order to prevent disengagement of the upper bottle portion from the lower bottle portion unless a required upward movement of the bottle is applied to unlock.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to cross-sectional area and that the Office incorrectly concludes “the cap 17 with opening 36” is equivalent to “an opening through the neck of the botte”. However, the upper portion of the bottle was mapped to cap 17 so that the neck thereof has opening 36 running through which is smaller than the treatment assembly. Applicant provides annotated figures that are not in line with the previous rejection’s mapping.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 36 and a partial rotation less than a full turn. However, the claim language only states for engagement and, more importantly, only the treatment assembly is being positively recited. The full connection will rely on the structure of the unrecited mating structure which may allow for only a partial rotation for connection.
New claim 40 has been addressed with an additional reference to show a locking mechanism from a similarly structured reference.
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 MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
