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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the fish bowl cleaner 200 is not shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at one end of the body”, “a hollow portion of the body” and “exposed to the body” in lines 3-6. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “at one end of the hollow body”, a hollow portion of the hollow body” and “exposed to the hollow body” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the bottom material discharge port” in lines 5-6 which lacks an antecedent basis. In addition, for clarification purposes, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 4 as, for example:
Claim 4
The fish bowl cleaner of claim 2, wherein the fluid is moved from the suction port to the water outlet, and there are (i) a second path in which a bottom material is filtered by the bottom material strainer, and only water and contaminants are moved, and (ii) a first path in which the fluid is moved from the suction port to the bottom material discharge port, and unfiltered are simultaneously formed, inside the hollow body.
Claim 7 recites “the bottom material discharge port” in lines 5-6 which lacks an antecedent basis. In addition, for clarification purposes, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 7 as, for example:
Claim 7
The fish bowl cleaner of claim 3, wherein the fluid is moved from the suction port to the water outlet, and there are (i) a second path in which a bottom material is filtered by the bottom material strainer, and only water and contaminants are moved, and (ii) a first path in which the fluid is moved from the suction port to the bottom material discharge port, and unfiltered are simultaneously formed, inside the hollow body.
Claim 16 recites “the body” in line 2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the hollow body” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the body” in line 2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the hollow body” for consistent recitation of claim limitation.
Appropriate corrections are 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a means providing power” in line 4 of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6, 9, 12 and 15 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “and the suction port to the discharge port, and unfiltered” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to what structure/mechanism the term “and the suction port to the discharge port, and unfiltered” is meant to imply.
Claim 9 recites “and the suction port to the discharge port, and unfiltered” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to what structure/mechanism the term “and the suction port to the discharge port, and unfiltered” is meant to imply.
Claim 12 recites “a connector, the connector” in lines 4-5. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: It is unclear whether the limitation “a connector, the connector” recited in claim 12 is the same or different from “a connector formed at one end of the body” recited in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “a connector, the connector” in lines 4-5. This is considered indefinite for the following reason: It is unclear whether the limitation “a connector, the connector” recited in claim 15 is the same or different from “a connector formed at one end of the body” recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro (JP 2001157804A, please refer to the attached English translation document, herein “Yoshihiro”).
In regard to claim 1, Yoshihiro discloses a fish bowl cleaner (page 1, Abstract) comprising (pages 1-2; Figs. 1 and 3 of the original Japanese document):
a hollow body including a suction port (the hollow internal space of the fish bowl cleaner in Fig. 1, a suction port at the bottom) and a water outlet (11, Fig. 1);
a connector formed at one end of the body (a portion of the body connecting the hollow body and the electric case 1, Fig. 1), and connected to a means providing power (electric case 1 and motor 2, Fig. 1);
a rotary shaft (3, Fig. 1) extended in a direction of crossing a hollow portion of the body, and at least partially exposed to the body, and rotated by the power (the rotary shaft 3 is powered by a motor 2, Fig. 1); and
one or more propellers (5, Fig. 1) coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft, wherein at least one transports a fluid to the water outlet (11, Fig. 1) through the suction port as the rotary shaft is rotated by the power (page 2, paragraph [0005]).
Yoshihiro discloses every limitation recited in claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 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 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (JP 2001157804A, please refer to the attached English translation document, herein “Yoshihiro”).
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Yoshihiro discloses the fish bowl cleaner as set forth above.
Yoshihiro discloses a bottom material strainer (6, Fig. 1) and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid (Fig. 1; page 2, paragraph [0005]).
But Yoshihiro does not explicitly disclose the features of “a bottom material strainer coupled to the rotary shaft to be spaced from an extension direction of the rotary shaft by an angle, and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid” or “a bottom material strainer coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft to be perpendicular to an extension direction of the rotary shaft, and positioned on the transportation path of the fluid” as recited.
However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied the general principles of chemistry, chemical engineering, and process design. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied and practiced specific aspects of chemistry and chemical engineering related to specific processes/apparatus (e.g., contaminant filtering apparatus). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts understands how to apply those general principles to specific processes/apparatus. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts is considered to understand the value of a reference such as Yoshihiro as well as its applicability to the problems related to modify to implement the features “a bottom material strainer coupled to the rotary shaft to be spaced from an extension direction of the rotary shaft by an angle, and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid” or “a bottom material strainer coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft to be perpendicular to an extension direction of the rotary shaft, and positioned on the transportation path of the fluid” as recited.
Therefore, the claimed features “a bottom material strainer coupled to the rotary shaft to be spaced from an extension direction of the rotary shaft by an angle, and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid” or “a bottom material strainer coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft to be perpendicular to an extension direction of the rotary shaft, and positioned on the transportation path of the fluid” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize fish bowl cleaner activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the bottom material strainer bodies with respect to the rotary shaft, the physical and chemical make-up of the contaminants as well as the nature of the filtered water output.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, such as incorporating dependent claim 4 AND claim 2 into an independent claim 1 as exemplified below.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 1-13 in the instant application are allowed if previously presented objection to claims 1 and 4-17, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) issues, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 6, 9, 12 and 15 are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 4-17. The concept of a fish bowl cleaner comprising:
a hollow body including a suction port and a water outlet;
a connector formed at one end of the body, and connected to a means providing power;
a rotary shaft extended in a direction of crossing a hollow portion of the body, and at least partially exposed to the body, and rotated by the power; and
one or more propellers coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft, wherein at least one transports a fluid to the water outlet through the suction port as the rotary shaft is rotated by the power, and
a bottom material strainer coupled to the rotary shaft to be spaced from an extension direction of the rotary shaft by an angle, and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid (claim 2),
wherein the fluid is moved from the suction port to the water outlet, and a second path in which a bottom material is filtered by the bottom material strainer, and only water and contaminants are moved, and a first path in which the fluid is moved from the suction port to the bottom material discharge port, and unfiltered are simultaneously formed (claim 4), is considered novel.
A closest prior art to Yoshihiro (JP 2001157804A) discloses a fish bowl cleaner (page 1, Abstract) comprising (pages 1-2; Figs. 1 and 3 of the original Japanese document): (i) a hollow body including a suction port (the hollow internal space of the fish bowl cleaner in Fig. 1, a suction port at the bottom) and a water outlet (11, Fig. 1); (ii) a connector formed at one end of the body (a portion of the body connecting the hollow body and the electric case 1, Fig. 1), and connected to a means providing power (electric case 1 and motor 2, Fig. 1); (iii) a rotary shaft (3, Fig. 1) extended in a direction of crossing a hollow portion of the body, and at least partially exposed to the body, and rotated by the power (the rotary shaft 3 is powered by a motor 2, Fig. 1); and (iv) one or more propellers (5, Fig. 1) coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft, wherein at least one transports a fluid to the water outlet (11, Fig. 1) through the suction port as the rotary shaft is rotated by the power (page 2, paragraph [0005]).
Other pertinent prior art to Nagano (US 5,582,719) discloses a filtration system comprising: (i) a housing having an overall surface including a bottom surface, an upper surface and a peripheral wall, with the overall surface being tightly closed, except at the bottom surface and the upper surface, with said bottom surface having an inlet to said housing and said upper surface having an outlet to said housing; (ii) a filter medium disposed within said housing and through which said fluid entering said housing through said inlet passes; (iii) an air jetting portion disposed within said housing at a higher location than said filter medium; and (iv) a propeller fan disposed at an upper portion of said housing and rotated by air which is jetted from said air jetting portion, with said fluid passing through said filter medium exiting said housing through said outlet by means of said propeller fan.
Other pertinent prior art to Yuji (JP 2010-180810 A, please refer to the attached English translation document) discloses a vertical shaft pump including a casing 12 having a suction port 14 opened in a water absorption tank 11 at a lower end side and a main shaft 18 extending in the casing 12 and having an impeller 17 fixed to the lower end side 10, the high pressure water pipe 24 branched from the upper end side of the casing 12 and connected to the distribution part 25, and the horizontal component in the ejection direction on the bottom side of the part branched from the distribution part 25 and disposed in the water absorption tank 11, and a plurality of high-pressure water jet pipes 29 each having a nozzle 26 having high pressure water supplied from the casing 12 through the high-pressure water pipe 24, the distributor 25, and the high-pressure water jet pipe 29. The nozzle 26 is disposed so that the high-pressure water generates a swirling flow around the suction port 14.
Other pertinent prior art to Lee (KR 10-0907912 B1, please refer to the attached English translation document) an apparatus for filtering foreign materials for a water tub includes a housing (100), a suction unit (200), a filtering plate (300), and a circulating unit (400). The housing is made of a transparent material of an octahedral cylindrical form. The housing includes the filtering plate and the circulating unit. The housing includes an inlet in which water is flowed, a storing part in which foreign materials are stored, and a supporting protrusion (130) supporting the housing.
The cited prior arts, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a fish bowl cleaner comprising: (i) a hollow body including a suction port and a water outlet; (ii) a connector formed at one end of the body, and connected to a means providing power; (iii) a rotary shaft extended in a direction of crossing a hollow portion of the body, and at least partially exposed to the body, and rotated by the power; and (iv) one or more propellers coupled to interlock with the rotary shaft, wherein at least one transports a fluid to the water outlet through the suction port as the rotary shaft is rotated by the power, and (v) a bottom material strainer coupled to the rotary shaft to be spaced from an extension direction of the rotary shaft by an angle, and positioned on a transportation path of the fluid, wherein the fluid is moved from the suction port to the water outlet, and a second path in which a bottom material is filtered by the bottom material strainer, and only water and contaminants are moved, and a first path in which the fluid is moved from the suction port to the bottom material discharge port, and unfiltered are simultaneously formed, as recited in claim 1 of claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights