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 Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 appears to have at typo and should read, “…a water guide coating layer …” 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 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: An exhaust device in claim 3. 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 § 102 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 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 - 4 , 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kellam et al. US 2016/0031721. Claim 1, Kellam teaches an automatic water filtering purifying bottle comprising: a bottle body (122) and a filter device (110) wherein the bottle body comprises a raw water cavity (112) and a purified water cavity (162), the raw water cavity and purified water cavity sequentially disposed along an axis direction, the bottle body defines a raw water opening (at 392) and a purified water opening (366), the raw water opening is capable of being opened and closed (by cap 332), the raw water opening is configured to communicate with the raw water cavity, the purified water opening is capable of being opened and closed (par 48), the purified water opening is configured to communicate with the purified water cavity, the filter device is configured to filter water in the raw water cavity and is communicated with the raw water cavity and the purified water cavity (fig. 1-6). Claims 2 -4, 6 and 9 , Kellam further teaches the raw water cavity and purified water cavity in the bottle body are separated by a partition plate (at 372), the partition plate defines a filter mounting hole, the filter device is fixed in the mounting hole of the partition plate (fig. 1-6, par 47); the bottle further comprises an exhaust device (382, 385), the exhaust device configured to maintain an air pressure balance in the raw water cavity and the purified water cavity (par 44-45); the exhaust device comprises an exhaust pipe (382), the exhaust pipe comprises a pipe cavity, an air inlet and an air outlet, the air inlet is in communication with the air outlet through the pipe cavity, the air inlet is configured to communicate with the purified water cavity, the air outlet is configured to communicate with the raw water cavity (fig. 3-4, par 44-45); the exhaust device further comprises a check valve (385), the check valve is configured to discharge air in the purified water cavity from the air outlet of the exhaust pipe to the raw water cavity, the check valve is further configured to limit the water in the raw water cavity to enter the purified water cavity from the air outlet of the exhaust pipe (fig. 3-4, par 44-45); and the bottle further comprises a purified water opening lid (332), the purified water opening lid is detachably connected to the bottle body to open and close the purified water opening (fig. 1-6, par 46) . Claim(s) 1 - 4 , 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris GB 2 360 954 . Claim 1, Harris teaches an automatic water filtering purifying bottle comprising: a bottle body (1) and a filter device (7) wherein the bottle body comprises a raw water cavity (2) and a purified water cavity (3), the raw water cavity and purified water cavity sequentially disposed along an axis direction, the bottle body defines a raw water opening (at 5) and a purified water opening (at 6), the raw water opening is capable of being opened and closed (by cap 5), the raw water opening is configured to communicate with the raw water cavity, the purified water opening is capable of being opened and closed (by cap 6), the purified water opening is configured to communicate with the purified water cavity, the filter device is configured to filter water in the raw water cavity and is communicated with the raw water cavity and the purified water cavity (fig. 1-2). Claims 2-4, 6 and 9, Harris further teaches the raw water cavity and purified water cavity in the bottle body are separated by a partition plate (at 7), the partition plate defines a filter mounting hole, the filter device is fixed in the mounting hole of the partition plate (fig. 1-2); the bottle further comprises an exhaust device (4), the exhaust device configured to maintain an air pressure balance in the raw water cavity and the purified water cavity (fig 1-2, abstract); the exhaust device comprises an exhaust pipe, the exhaust pipe comprises a pipe cavity, an air inlet (at the bottom) and an air outlet (at the top), the air inlet is in communication with the air outlet through the pipe cavity, the air inlet is configured to communicate with the purified water cavity, the air outlet is configured to communicate with the raw water cavity (fig. 1-2); the exhaust device further comprises a check valve (valve 4), the check valve is configured to discharge air in the purified water cavity from the air outlet of the exhaust pipe to the raw water cavity, the check valve is further configured to limit the water in the raw water cavity to enter the purified water cavity from the air outlet of the exhaust pipe (fig. 1-2 ); and the bottle further comprises a purified water opening lid ( 6 ), the purified water opening lid is detachably connected to the bottle body to open and close the purified water opening (fig. 1- 2 ). Claim(s) 1 -4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yaseen et al. WO 01/09040. Claim 1, Yaseen teaches an automatic water filtering purifying bottle comprising: a bottle body (110) and a filter device (151) wherein the bottle body comprises a raw water cavity ( 147 ) and a purified water cavity ( below 142 ), the raw water cavity and purified water cavity sequentially disposed along an axis direction, the bottle body defines a raw water opening ( 88 ) and a purified water opening ( 84 ), the raw water opening is capable of being opened and closed (by cap 113 ), the raw water opening is configured to communicate with the raw water cavity, the purified water opening is capable of being opened and closed (by cap 85 ), the purified water opening is configured to communicate with the purified water cavity, the filter device is configured to filter water in the raw water cavity and is communicated with the raw water cavity and the purified water cavity (fig. 6-9 ). Claims 2 and 9-10, Yaseen further teaches the raw water cavity and purified water cavity in the bottle body are separated by a partition plate (142), the partition plate defines a filter mounting hole, the filter device is fixed in the mounting hole of the partition plate (fig. 6-9); the bottle further comprises a purified water opening lid (113), the purified water opening lid is detachably connected to the bottle body to open and close the purified water opening (fig. 6-9); and the lid comprises a connecting cover (69), a flipping cover (87), and a screwing cover (85), the connecting cover is detachable mounted on the purified water opening of the bottle body, a movable through hole is defined on the flipping cover, a connecting hole (82) is defined on the connecting cover, the connecting hole is communicated with the purified water cavity through the purified water opening, the screwing cap is rotatably in the movable through hole to be connected to or separated from the connecting cover, so the connecting hole is controlled to open or close (fig. 6-9). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 7-8 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5, the closest prior art to Kellam and Harris teaches the bottle of claim 4 but do not teach a polishing layer or water guide coating layer on an inner wall of the exhaust pipe nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 7, the closest prior art to Kellam and Harris teaches the bottle of claim 6 but do not teach the exhaust device further comprises a valve covering assembly configured to fix the check valve to the exhaust pipe and cover the check valve to limit water from entering the pipe cavity from the air outlet, an exhaust gap defined between the valve covering assembly and the check valve configured to communicate with the air outlet of the exhaust pipe nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 8 is allowable as depending from claim 7. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaschko et al. WO 2016/187230 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8211 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BENJAMIN M KURTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779