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 1-12 are currently pending
Claims 13-20 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-10 and 12 are currently amended
Claims 1-12 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Joshua A. Crawford, Reg. No. 72,137, on March 25th, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract needs to be on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “of any of claim 1,” and instead should state “of claim 1,” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “wherein a length is measured” and instead should state “wherein the length is measured” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 and 3 each state “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to each recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the filter”. Does Applicant intend to recite “the integrated filter” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the first coupling fitting is configured to connect” on line 2 of claim 4, and “the gripping protrusion configured to allow” on line 3 of claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-12 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 "a filter” on line 8. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an integrated filter,’ as recited on line 1 of claim 1, or a different filter? Claims 2-12 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the check valve,” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the convex portion towards the connection portion.” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 7-8 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the convex portion,” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the connection portion towards the convex portion.” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 11 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 10.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHENG XIONGGUO et al. (CN 205781113 U) (hereinafter “Zheng”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 1:
Zheng teaches an inlet hose assembly having an integrated filter (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22), the faucet inlet hose assembly comprising:
a hose comprising a first hose end and a second hose end (see FIG. 1, a pipe body 10 further including outlet heads 11 at each end of the pipe 10) (see paragraphs 7, 16 and 19);
a first coupling fitting, wherein the first hose end terminates at the first coupling fitting (see FIG. 1, a clamping clamp 13) (see paragraphs 7, 16 and 19);
a second coupling fitting, wherein the second hose end terminates at the second coupling fitting (see FIG. 1, a clamping clamp 13) (see paragraphs 7, 16 and 19);
a hose connector connected to the first hose end (see FIG. 1, a connecting nut 12) (see paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 16 and 19); and
a filter at least partially within the first coupling fitting and coupled to the hose connector (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see paragraphs 7, 16 and 19).
Although Zheng teaches an inlet hose assembly (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22), one may broadly interpret that Zheng does not explicitly teach a faucet inlet hose assembly, as recited in the preamble of independent claim 1. However, this claim limitation is in the preamble and 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 inlet hose assembly of Zheng to be capable and configured to be used and attached to a faucet for optimization purposes and to effectively remove contaminants and particles from a faucet stream (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 2:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the first coupling fitting comprises a check valve, a nut, and the hose connector (see FIG. 1, a clamping clamp 13 and the connecting nut 12) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 16 and 19).
Regarding Claim 3:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a convex portion and a connection portion, and the convex portion extends away from the first hose end (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 4:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the first coupling fitting is configured to connect to a water source (see FIG. 1, a clamping clamp 13) (see paragraphs 4-5, 7, 16 and 19).
Regarding Claim 5:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 3, wherein the connection portion comprises a fitting that removably connects to the check valve, and the fitting comprises a snap fitting (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 6:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a plurality of channels, wherein each channel of the plurality of channels extends from the convex portion towards the connection portion (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 7:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 6, wherein a length of a first channel of the plurality of channels is greater than a length of a second channel of the plurality of channels, wherein a length is measured along a surface of the filter extending from the convex portion to the connection portion (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding the claim limitation ‘a length of a first channel of the plurality of channels is greater than a length of a second channel of the plurality of channels’, 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 inlet hose assembly of Zheng to be configured to have this specific length configuration for optimization purposes and to effectively remove contaminants and particles from a faucet stream (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 8:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 6, wherein a length of each channel of the plurality of channels extends from about 50% to about 80% of a total distance measured along an exterior surface of the filter extending from a center of the convex portion to a bottommost location of the connection portion (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding the claim limitation ‘a length of each channel of the plurality of channels extends from about 50% to about 80% of a total distance’, 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 inlet hose assembly of Zheng to be configured to have this specific length configuration for optimization purposes and to effectively remove contaminants and particles from a faucet stream (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a gripping protrusion extending from a center of the convex portion, the gripping protrusion configured to allow a tool to grip the filter (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 10:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a plurality of cut-outs extending from the connection portion towards the convex portion (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 11:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 10, wherein each cut-out of the plurality of cut-outs extends from about 50% to about 80% of a total distance measured along an exterior surface of the filter extending from a center of the convex portion to a bottommost location of the connection portion (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding the claim limitation ‘wherein each cut-out of the plurality of cut-outs extends from about 50% to about 80% of a total distance’, 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 inlet hose assembly of Zheng to be configured to have this specific length configuration for optimization purposes and to effectively remove contaminants and particles from a faucet stream (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Regarding Claim 12:
Zheng teaches the faucet inlet hose assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter comprises one or more of a metal such as stainless steel, aluminum, or brass; a thermoplastic such as polyamide, acrylic, polycarbonate, polyoxymethylene, polyester, polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polyphenylene sulfite, polyphenylene oxide, polysulfone, polyphthalamide, combinations thereof or copolymers thereof; or an elastomer such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene or silicone rubber (Examiner’s note: these claim limitations are in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see FIG. 1, whole structure further including a filter 30) (see FIG. 3, a filter 30) (see FIGS. 2-3, valve 20, nut 12 and/or sealing gaskets 21, positioning grooves 22, and positioning rings 23) (see paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 19 and 22).
Other References Considered
Cronley (U.S. 2004/0164547 A1) (hereinafter “Cronley”) teaches a quick-connecting coupler for hoses, pipes and faucets.
FIACK THOMAS et al. (WO 2014/202133 A1) (hereinafter “Fiack”) teaches a suction hose fitting.
Howard et al. (U.S. 2008/0272590 A1) (hereinafter “Howard”) teaches a reusable fitting, connector assembly and kit.
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