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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-3, 5-19, is/are filed on 10/31/2025 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-19 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (US 20200290860 A1) in view of WO 2022250607 A1 or EP 2977091 A1 and further in view of Jenkins (US 7083725 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
737
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Lynch teaches a wall mounted filtering system, comprising: a chassis (100) having an outwardly facing planer surface and a central recess bay (106), lower recess bay (404); a face plate (120) covering at least a portion of the outwardly facing planer surface; a filter assembly including at least a first stage filter (104) that is horizontally placed.
Lynch does not teach that the assembly further comprises an upper recess bay, comprising another filter. The addition of a second recess is merely a design choice, like the existing one is an obvious addition to expand spacing for more filter units and thus enhance filtration. Additionally, it is obvious at least to have dual stage filter see at least WO 2022250607 A1, items 28 providing additional layer of filtration, which also teaches serial arrangement (‘The filtration system 26 may include a series of filtration cartridges 28’). Additionally see at least EP 2977091 A1. EP’ 091 teaches a housing module having a top compartment (78) a middle compartment (22) and lower compartment (82) and the filters (20) can be arranged in series and placed horizontally (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to combine the vertical arrangement of filter components from EP’ 709 into Lynch to allow compact stacking of multiple filter stages in a wall-mounted system, improving space efficiency and ease of service in constrained installations. Since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have rearranged in this order, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Lynch does not teach the first stage filter being operably coupled to the chassis with the first hinge and second hinge to tilt outward between an initial filter position in which the first stage filter is located within at least one of the upper recess bay and the lower recess bay below the outwardly facing planer surface, and a final filter position in which the first stage filter extends outward from the outwardly facing planer surface.
However, this is not inventive and well-known. In one embodiment, Lynch discloses beverage dispensing system may include an assembly, such as a drawer, positioned below the dispenser having a filter box. The drawer may be opened to allow the user access to a removable filter contained in the filter box. Thus, the filter may be accessed without the need for tools or to remove paneling or other components from the system [0023]. Hence, Lynch seeks to solve the same problem as the present application.
Jenkins discloses a water filter assembly mounted in a refrigerator ceiling, featuring a pivotable manifold and a cartridge (22) that hinges outward for servicing, with shared pivot points enabling controlled movement. The filter cartridge is attached via hinges (first hinge pins in collar/clip 34/36) and second hinge (pins in cover collars 58)) that allow the manifold and cartridge to tilt outward from an initial recessed position to an extended service position (C2/30-C3/45). This design is analogous to chassis-mounted filter systems as both involve filtration elements requiring periodic replacement within confined, recessed spaces (e.g., bays or compartments) attached to a supporting framework (chassis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have substituted the design of Jenkins into Lynch for the purpose improving safety (e.g., reducing exposure to fluids or debris), efficiency (e.g., quicker replacements), and reliability (e.g., maintaining seals in the initial position). This would amount to nothing more than a predictable result of utilizing tilting mechanisms, and market pressures for user-friendly maintenance in consumer and industrial products easily and securely unmount and mount filter cartridges. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2-3, Lynch does not teaches wherein face plate is removably coupled to the chassis via a magnetic assembly, wherein the face plate includes a plurality of corners and the magnetic assembly concentrates a plurality of magnets on the plurality of corners of the face plate. However, this seems nothing but a design choice and is well known - see at least US 20200263641 A1, fig. 26, 0045 - using plurality would be obvious to further secure tightly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated such feature to enable ease of access to the filter(s) in Lynch.
Regarding claim 5, WO 2022250607 A1 teaches the first stage filter is a sediment filter and the second stage filter is a carbon filter (‘a first of the filtration cartridges 28 immediately downstream of the liquid inlet 12 may contain a fibre-made filter media to remove coarse contaminants such as, for example, sand and/or other debris, whilst each of the second and third filtration cartridges 28 downstream of the first may contain activated carbon‘).
Regarding claims 6-7, Lynch teaches the chassis is fabricated as a single unitary construction is fabricated via injection molding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the chassis for reducing the need of joining multiple parts therefore simplifying manufacturing, lowering production cost and reducing assembly time. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Injection molding is a product by process limitation. Additionally, injection molding is well-known as it provides the elimination of seals and welding which are common points of failure and leakage, thus would have been readily found obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Lynch teaches further comprising one or more sensors (204).
Regarding claim 9, Lynch teaches the one or more sensors includes a container sensor operable to detect when a container is in place within the central recess bay to dispense liquid [0042].
Regarding claim 10, Lynch teaches the one or more sensors includes a filter sensor operable to detect whether the first and second stage filters should be replaced [0026].
Regarding claim 11, Lynch teaches wherein the face plate is removably attached to the chassis (Figs.5-6 refer to the system 100 with front paneling removed) [0052-0057].
Regarding claim 12, Lynch teaches wherein the face plate is disposed over the outwardly facing surface and covers the upper recess bay and a lower recess bay, and has an opening therein that provides access to the central recess bay (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Lynch teaches wherein the face plate has a planar construction, and wherein the opening circumferentially surrounds the central recess bay (it is implied that from the drawings it has planar shape – alternatively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have to selected to appropriate shape that provides best function in terms of design). It has been held changes of size, shape, etc without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp. v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7), cert, denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW3359 (1974).
Regarding claim 14, Lynch teaches wherein the central recess bay includes a first frame extending outward from the outwardly facing planer surface of the chassis and surrounding the central recess bay, the first frame configured to locate the face plate horizontally and vertically to the chassis (see fig. 5 or fig. 8 refer to region of 502).
Regarding claim 15, Lynch teaches wherein the chassis includes a second frame extending outward from the outwardly facing planer surface of the chassis and surrounding an outside perimeter of the face plate (see fig. 5 or fig. 8 refer to region of 502).
Regarding claim 16, Lynch teaches wherein the face plate is offset from the outwardly facing planer surface. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have to selected to appropriate shape that provides best function in terms of design). It has been held changes of size, shape, etc without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp. v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7), cert, denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW3359 (1974).
Regarding claim 17, Lynch teaches comprising a box frame for surface mounting the filtering system and wherein the chassis is removably attached to the box frame (fig. 5 or fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Lynch teaches wherein the box frame comprises a first vertical channel (first channel formed by 508) and a second vertical channel (first channel formed by 508 laterally) laterally opposite the first vertical channel.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. 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.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777