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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lown (US20140308415A1 published 10/16/2014) in view of McCleary (US Pat No. 3,324,787A published 03/04/1965).
Regarding claim 1, Lown teaches an extraction system for testing microbial contamination (“for testing microbial contamination” is an intended use of the extraction system; see MPEP 2114II), the extraction system comprising:
(a) a biocompatible outer vessel (a brewing pitcher 102 – Fig. 1) comprising a side wall (brewing pitcher 102 includes a container body 103 – Fig. 1);
(b) a biocompatible inner vessel (an infuser 110 – Fig. 1) positionable within the biocompatible outer vessel (the infuser 110 positioned inside of the brewing pitcher 102 – Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the biocompatible inner vessel comprises:
a body (a porous filter medium 119 – Fig. 1) formed from a perforated rigid sheet (a porous filter medium 119 capable of being formed from a rigid sheet – Fig. 1 and paragraph 21), and one or more supports (an upper rim 113 and a bottom wall 117 of the infuser 110 – Fig. 1 and paragraph 21) extending along a length of the biocompatible inner vessel to provide rigidity to the biocompatible inner vessel (the upper rim 113 and bottom wall 117 extending along a length of the infuser 110 and provide rigidity – Fig. 1).
However, Lown does not teach a biocompatible suspension system positionable within the biocompatible inner vessel, and wherein the biocompatible suspension system comprises one or more horizontal rods coupled to one or more vertical rods.
McCleary teaches an extraction device for tea comprising a biocompatible suspension system (a handled-clip member 13 – Fig. 1) positionable within the biocompatible inner vessel (the handled-clip member 13 is in an infuser assembly 10 – Fig. 1), and wherein the biocompatible suspension system comprises one or more horizontal rods (a top handle portion 25 – Fig. 1) coupled to one or more vertical rods (leg portions 27 – Fig. 1). McCleary teaches to use the handled-clip member 13 the allow the removal of the cylindrical or tubular member 11 of the infuser assembly 10 (column 2 lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the infuser 110, as taught by Lown, with the handled-clip member 13, taught by McCleary, to allow the removal of the infuser assembly. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Lown and McCleary teach beverage infusers.
Regarding claim 2, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein: the one or more supports extending along the length of the biocompatible inner vessel (the bottom wall 117 of the infuser 110 – Lown Fig. 1) comprise a bottom support extending horizontally along a second end of the biocompatible inner vessel (the bottom wall 117 extending horizontally along the bottom of the infuser 110 – Lown Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein: the one or more supports extending along the length of the biocompatible inner vessel (the upper rim 113 – Lown Fig. 1) comprise one or more vertical support rods positioned vertically along a wall of the body (the upper rim 113 comprises one or more side walls positioned vertically along the porous filter medium 119 – Lown Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein: the one or more supports extending along the length of the biocompatible inner vessel (the upper rim 113 – Lown Fig. 1) comprise one or more ring-shaped support rods positioned along an interior or exterior of the body (infuser threads 115 positioned along an exterior of the porous filter medium 119 – Lown Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 4, wherein: the one or more supports extending along the length of the biocompatible inner vessel further comprise one or more vertical support rods (side walls of the infuser 110 positioned vertically along the porous filter medium 119 – Lown Fig. 1) and the ring-shaped support rods are affixed to the one or more vertical support rods (the infuser threads 115 are connected to the side walls by the upper rim 113 – Lown Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein: the biocompatible outer vessel further comprises a flange (a lid ring 106 – Lown Fig. 1) that is couplable to a second end of the biocompatible outer vessel (the lid ring 106 couples to the top of the brewing pitcher 102 – Lown Fig. 1), wherein the flange extends away from the second end (the lid ring 106 extends away from the top of the brewing pitcher 102 – Lown Fig. 1) to provide stabilization to the biocompatible outer vessel during a processing operation (the lid ring 106 provides stabilization to the brewing pitcher 102 in use – Lown Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein: the biocompatible outer vessel comprises at least one of a spout (a spout 202 – Lown Fig. 1 and 2A), a flange (a lid ring 106 – Lown Fig. 1), or a handle (a handle 206 – Lown Fig. 1 and 2A).
Regarding claim 9, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1.
However, Lown, modified by McCleary, does not teach wherein: the biocompatible outer vessel has a height of between about four inches and thirty inches.
Per MPEP 2114.04 IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the pitcher to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1.
However, Lown, modified by McCleary, does not teach wherein: the biocompatible outer vessel has a diameter of between approximately 2 inches and 8 inches.
Per MPEP 2114.04 IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the pitcher to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein the biocompatible inner vessel comprises a handle coupled to the biocompatible inner vessel (a cover handle 302 on a cover top surface 304 attached to the infuser 110 – Fig. 3 and paragraph 26).
However, Lown, modified by McCleary, does not teach wherein: the biocompatible inner vessel has a height of approximately thirteen inches and a diameter of approximately four inches,
Per MPEP 2114.04 IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the pitcher to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein soft tissue sample is positionable (“soft tissue sample is positionable” is an intended use of the extraction system, per MPEP 2114II the limitation is deemed to read on a structure capable of holding a sample) on the biocompatible suspension system (a sample is capable of being placed between the leg portions 27 of the handled-clip member 13 – McCleary Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 21, wherein the horizontal rods and/or the vertical rods are configured to secure the soft tissue sample (“configured to secure the soft tissue sample” is deemed to read on a structure capable of securing a sample; see MPEP 2114II) within the biocompatible suspension system (a sample is capable of being secured between the leg portions 27 of the handled-clip member 13 – McCleary Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1.
However, Lown, modified by McCleary, does not teach wherein the perforated rigid sheet comprises biocompatible stainless steel with openings of approximately 0.63 cm or approximately 0.69 cm.
Per MPEP 2114.04 IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the spacing between the mesh or screen 119 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lown, modified by McCleary, in view of Olson et al (US20110079572A1 publish 04/07/2011; hereinafter Olson).
Regarding claim 7, Lown, modified by McCleary, teaches the extraction system of claim 1, wherein the porous filter medium 119 comprises at least one of a metal, fabric, or polymeric mesh or screen (Lown paragraph 21).
However, Lown does not teach wherein the perforated rigid sheet comprises at least one of: biocompatible stainless steel; a biocompatible polycarbonate material; glass; or titanium.
Olson teaches a water treatment device 2 comprising a treatment cartridge 8 the perforated rigid sheet (the treatment cartridge 8 – Fig. 1 and paragraph 81) comprises at least one of: biocompatible stainless steel; a biocompatible polycarbonate material (polycarbonates have sufficient strength to withstand sanitizing – paragraph 81) (“biocompatible” is an intended use recitation and deemed to read on a material capable of being made biocompatible via sanitization); glass; or titanium. Olson teaches to use a polycarbonate material because they are light-weight, facilitate portability, and have sufficient strength to withstand sanitizing for enabling its reuse (paragraph 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the porous filter medium 119, as taught by Lown and modified by McCleary, with the polycarbonate material, taught by Olson, to gain the advantages of portability and reusability. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Lown, McCleary, Olson teach containers for water treatment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejections of the claims have been considered, and due to amendments, the prior art rejection has been modified in order to address the amended claim language. The teachings of McCleary (US Pat No. 3,324,787A) have been included to address the new limitations.
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 TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 5712727129. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796