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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22198514.6, filed on 09/28/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character which was not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 Ref. 24.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Ref. 24 is interpreted as being identical to Ref. 14; which is shown in Figure 1, and defined as “appropriate plumbing” in ¶ 7.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 1-20 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.
The claims indicate in the preamble, “An aircraft water supply system,” but does not appear to indicate how the water supply system functions as an aircraft water supply system within the body of the claims. The remaining claims 2-13 and 15-20 are rejected due to their dependency of claims 1 and 14 respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The phrase “installed within an aircraft” merely restates, from the preamble of claim 1, an intended use or environment that does not structurally or functionally change the system itself compared to the independent claim.
For example, the language fails to specify unique and specific features, structural modifications, or functional interactions that are necessitated by an aircraft water supply system requirement beyond what is already present in the parent claim. Because a dependent claim must add a concrete limitation that narrows the scope of the parent claim, the current language fails to meet the statutory requirement.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity and efficiency in the examination process (compact prosecution), the following terms as outlined below are interpreted, but not limited to, the following:
“An aircraft water supply system” – a water supply system
“On demand” – provided when requested
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1).
Lindauer teaches the following: An aircraft water system {¶ 30} comprising: a water tank {Fig. 1 Ref. 1} for storing potable water {¶ 23, “drinking water”}; and two or more faucets {Fig. 1, Ref. 6’s} that are each connected to the water tank {¶ 30}; and that aircraft water system installed within an aircraft {¶ 30}.
Lindauer does not teach that the faucets are configured to dispense the potable water on demand in response to a user actuating the faucet, wherein each of the two or more faucets includes a respective filtering unit.
However, Aldred teaches a faucet that is configured to dispense the potable water on demand in response to a user actuating the faucet {¶ 60} wherein each of the two or more faucets includes a respective filtering unit {¶ 60}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious and been motivated to replace the multiple faucets of Lindauer’s aircraft water system {Ref. 6} with the faucet of Aldred {Fig. 1} because both inventions teach a faucet and Aldred further teaches the improvement of an actuator that allows the user to turn on and off the flow of water.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1), in further view of Dani (US20170050127A1).
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above in the prior 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred do not teach the filtering units for each faucet provides three stages of filtering comprising: a coarse filtering stage, a first filtering stage comprising a hollow fiber filter and/or one or more ion exchange resin filters, and a second filtering stage comprising activated carbon. The filtering unit comprises a cartridge that is removable from the faucet. The cartridge includes one or more of the coarse filtering stage; the first filtering stage; and the second filtering stage. The coarse filtering stage comprises a mesh or gauze. The second filtering stage comprises activated carbon pebbles. The filtering stages are arranged such that water flows through the coarse filtering stage and then into and through the first filtering stage and the second filtering stage in sequence. Lastly wherein the water flowing through the first filtering stage flows directly into the second filtering stage along the flow direction.
However, Dani teaches a filtering unit for a faucet provides three stages of filtering {Fig. 5b} comprising: a coarse filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 172 and ¶ 57}, a first filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 174} comprising hollow fiber filter and /or one or more ion exchange resin filters {¶ 35}, and a second filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 176} comprising activated carbon {¶ 35}. The filtering unit comprises a cartridge that is removable from the faucet {¶ 30}. The cartridge includes one or more of the coarse filtering stage; the first filtering stage; and the second filtering stage {Fig. 5b}. The coarse filtering stage comprises a mesh or gauze {¶ 57, “Mesh may be incorporated above, below, or within the outlet port(s) 32, although the mesh could be located in additional, or alternative locations within the fluid path”}. The second filtering stage comprises activated carbon pebbles {¶ 48, “particulate activated carbon”}. The filtering stages are arranged such that water flows through the coarse filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 172} and then into and through the first filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 174} and the second filtering stage in sequence {Fig. 5b Ref. 176} Lastly wherein the water flowing through the first filtering stage flows directly into the second filtering stage along the flow direction. {Fig. 5b and ¶ 81}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious and been motivated to combine the unified invention of Lindauer and Aldred with Dani because Dani teaches the importance of clean drinking water to human health {¶ 5} and further teaches the improvements of space-saving and cost-efficiency of cartridge water filters {¶ 7}.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1), in further view of Walker (EP 0872600 A1).
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above in a prior 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Lindauer further teaches an inlet {¶ 16, “interconnecting at least one water consumption outlet to at least one water supply source”} connected to the aircraft water supply and an outlet {¶ 16, “water consumption outlet”} through which water is dispensed {¶ 30 and Fig. 1}.
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred do not teach that the filtering units are installed or integrated into the faucets such that the filtering unit is provided within the body of the faucet.
However, Walker teaches a filtering unit that is integrated or installed into a faucet {Col. 3 Lines 3-6 and Fig. 1}; and that filtering unit is provided within the body of the faucet {Col. 3 Lines 3-6 and Fig. 1}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the unified invention of Lindauer and Aldred with Walker because Walker teaches additional disinfection methods that are not taught in Lindauer and Oguri, and further teaches the “self-contained” cartridge having little risk of any contamination during replacement, improving the hygiene of the system. {Col. 3 Lines 25-28}
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1) and Dani (US20170050127A1), in further view of Bridges (WO2005033017A1).
The combination Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 6, as mentioned in preceding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
The combination of Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani do not teach a mesh or gauze comprises of apertures that are sized and configured to filter out particles having a size greater than 2mm.
However, Bridges teaches a mesh or gauze comprises of apertures that are sized and configured to filter out particles having a size greater than 2mm {Pg. 10 Lines 17-21}
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the unified invention of Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani with Bridges because Bridges teaches the importance of retention of the filter elements from within the cartridge to the potable water stream. {Pg. 10 Lines 17-18} and the improvement of adding mesh material to the inlet of the cartridge to satisfy the retention issue.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1) and Dani (US20170050127A1), in further view of Sigona (US 20200376415 A1).
The combination Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as mentioned in preceding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
The combination of Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani do not teach that water flows radially to an outlet of the faucet.
However, Sigona teaches water flowing radially {¶ 6 and Fig. 3} to an outlet {Fig. 3 Ref. 66} of the faucet.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the unified invention of Lindauer, Aldred, and Dani with Sigona because Sigona teaches improvements of radially flowing filters, such as increased surface area for filtration and how radial flow technology can be used in combination with other filtration methods without much reduction in pressure {¶ 6}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindauer (US20050126927A1) in view of Aldred (US20030010721A1), in further view of “A340-200/-300 Aircraft Characteristics Airport and Maintenance Planning Manual” (Airbus, Rev. 08/01/22). *Note the relevant sections of the Airbus manual have been abridged and renumbered to focus the documentation for this rejection, thereby avoiding potential confusion from extraneous information. Any referenced location in the rejection will refer to the abridged and renumbered manual. *
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred teach all of the limitations of claim 1 and 12 as mentioned in preceding in of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
The combination of Lindauer and Aldred do not teach a water tank installed within the cargo compartment of an aircraft.
However, Airbus teaches a water tank is installed within the cargo compartment of an aircraft {Fig. on Pg. 4}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the location of the water tank from Airbus with the unified invention of Lindauer and Aldred because firstly, Airbus is one of the leading manufacturers of passenger aircrafts, and they design the water tank to be within the cargo compartment. Secondly, the applicant in their own specification states that water is typically stored in the aircraft cargo compartment, when referring to prior art on the matter. Either of these reasons or both in combination teach the location of the water tank in the cargo compartment of an aircraft is known to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguri (US 20170320575) in view of Dani (US20170050127A1).
Oguri teaches a faucet for an aircraft water supply system {¶ 1}, the faucet including a respective filtering unit {¶ 14, “strainer”}.
Oguri does not teach a coarse filtering stage; first filtering stage comprising a hollow fiber filter and/or one of more ion exchange resin filters; and a second filtering stage comprising activated carbon. The filtering unit comprises a removable cartage, wherein that cartridge includes the first and second filtering stages, but not the coarse filtering stage. The second filtering stage comprises activated carbon pebbles, and the filtering stages are arranged such that water passes through the coarse filtering stage before passing to the other filtering stages.
However, Dani teaches a coarse filtering stage {¶ 57}, a first filtering stage {Fig. 5a Ref. 152} comprising hollow fiber filter and /or one or more ion exchange resin filters {¶ 35}, and a second filtering stage {Fig. 5a Ref. 154} comprising activated carbon {¶ 35}. The filtering unit comprises a cartridge that is removable from the faucet {¶ 30}, wherein cartridge includes the first filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 152} and the second filtering stage {Fig. 5b Ref. 154}. The cartridge does not include the coarse filtering stage {¶ 57, “although the mesh could be located in additional, or alternative locations within the fluid path”}. The coarse filtering stages comprises a mesh or gauze {¶ 57}. The second filtering stage comprises activated carbon pebbles {¶ 48, “particulate activated carbon”}. The filtering stages are arranged such that water flows through the coarse filtering stage before passing to the other filtering stages {¶ 57 and Fig. 5a}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the invention of Oguri with the invention of Dani because Oguri, a point-of-use invention, teaches the benefits of regulating flow within an aircraft, and Dani teaches, “A pressure reducing valve and/or other components can be optionally employed in the aforementioned point-of-use fluid filtration systems to reduce the pressure of the fluid entering the filtration cartridge” {¶ 31}
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguri (US 20170320575) in view of Dani (US20170050127A1), in further view of Bridges (WO2005033017A1).
The combination of Oguri and Dani teach all the limitations of claims 14 and 17 as mentioned above in the preceding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
The combination of Ogrui and Dani do not teach wherein the mesh or gauze comprises apertures that are sized and configured to filter out particles having a size greater than 2mm.
However, Bridges teaches a mesh or gauze comprising of apertures that are sized and configured to filter out particles having a size greater than 2mm {Pg. 10 Lines 17-21}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the unified invention Oguri and Dani with Bridges because Bridges teaches the importance of retention of the filter elements from within the cartridge to the potable water stream. {Pg. 10 Lines 17-18} and the improvement of adding mesh material to the inlet of the cartridge to satisfy the retention issue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779