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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 put forth helical threads. The structure is not disclosed in the disclosure.
Claims 6-7 put forth a friction fit. The structure is not disclosed in the disclosure.
Claim 10 puts forth decreasing diameter grooves. The structure is not disclosed in the disclosure.
Claim 12 puts forth hermetic sealing. The structure is not put forth in the disclosure.
Claim 14 puts forth radial fins strengthening the filter. The structure is not put forth in the disclosure.
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(s) 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermann (EP3598985).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann discloses a hydration device comprising:
a mouthpiece (100) comprising a connecting opening (121);
a head (222, 220, 221) comprising a channel opening (opening of 222 extending to the end of 221) and sides each defining a clip chamber (Element 222 includes a threaded exterior; The threaded depressions on the sides are interpreted as clip chambers); and
a tube (210) having a first end configured to connect to the mouthpiece connecting opening and a second end configured to connect to the head channel opening (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hermann discloses the hydration device of claim 1, the device further comprising a filter (220) in the channel opening (Figure 5) to filter a fluid passing through the channel opening to the tube (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The position of the filter provides for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 7, Hermann discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the channel opening and the tube second end comprise a complementary friction fit annular connection (Luer connection).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy (US 20160263465) in view of Binner (US 20120021375).
Regarding claim 1, Kennedy discloses a hydration device comprising:
a mouthpiece (15) comprising a connecting opening (33);
a head (31) comprising a channel opening (Interior passage in 31) and sides (sides of the head); and
a tube (17) having a first end configured to connect to the mouthpiece connecting opening and a second end configured to connect to the head channel opening (Figure 1 depicts the tube connected to the mouthpiece connected opening and integrally connected to the head channel opening), but fails to disclose the sides of the head each defining a clip chamber.
Binner discloses a fluid device that includes sides of a head (1108) that define a clip chamber (The chamber is defined between the channels (1142) and clips (1110) on each side of the head 1108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy with the disclosures of Binner, further providing the device of Kennedy to include a head (Binner, 1108) that includes the passage (Kennedy, 31) and structures (Binner, 1110) on each side (Binner, Figure 10), the passage and structures defining clip chambers on each side of the head (Binner, Figure 10), in order to provide for a securing structure for the head, as disclosed by Binner (Paragraph 187).
Regarding claim 5, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the clip chambers are configured to clip onto a face guard of a football helmet (As modified, the structure of the clip chambers provides for the claimed function)
Regarding claim 6, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the connecting opening and the tube first end compromise a complementary friction fit annular connection (Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 8, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the head sides each defining a clip chamber comprise two non-adjacent sides of the head (Binner, Figure 10, left and right side).
Regarding claim 9, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the head comprises a block shape having chamfered corners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the head as claimed, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the channel opening comprises a water inlet orifice (at the end opposite the tube) comprising decreasing diameter annular grooves (Figure 4, the decreasing annular grooves are on the outer surface of the orifice).
Regarding claim 11, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the clip chambers are configured to receive a football guard orthogonally to the tube (The configuration provides for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 12, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein a passage of water from the channel opening through the tube and into the mouthpiece is hermetic (Paragraph 30, the disclosure that the fluid path is closed to air suggests that it is hermetic).
Regarding claim 13, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the tube extends orthogonally to a tangent of a front of the mouthpiece (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the clip chambers are configured to receive a rolled edge of a drinking cup (The position and shape of the chambers provide for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 16, Kennedy in view of Binner discloses the hydration device of claim 1, wherein the clip chambers each comprise a void parallel with a lateral side of the head (Binner, Figure 10), but fails to disclose the shape of the void being cylindrical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cylindrical void, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann.
Regarding claims 3-4, Hermann discloses the hydration device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the connecting opening and the tube first end comprise complementary helical threads, or wherein the channel opening and the tube second end comprise complementary helical threads.
Hermann discloses that it is known to connect a tube (syringe) to the remaining components using a complimentary set of threads.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the components using threads, as Applicant has not disclosed that the structure solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose, and it appears the device would perform equally well constructed as disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide helical threads since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Hart (WO 2015149127).
Regarding claim 14, Hermann discloses the hydration device of claim 1, but is silent as to whether the filter (220) in the channel opening comprises radial fins configured to strengthen the filter.
Hart discloses a device wherein a filter (115) is comprised of radial fins configured to strengthen the filter (Figure 1D, The fins are align radially, and compressed into the chamber; The structure provides for the capability to strengthen the filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hermann with the disclosures of Hart, providing the filter (Hermann, 220) to include radial fins configured to strengthen the filter (Hart, Figure 1D), in as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the configuration would have yielded predictable results, including protection against pollutants in the fluid, in a system where the filter structure is not a critical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752