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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20170008774 A1 Mitchell.
Regarding claim 1,
Mitchell teaches,
A water filter (water filter assembly 120) assembly for a household appliance (beverage dispenser 100) having a removable reservoir (108), the household appliance defining an axial direction and a radial direction (fig. 1), the water filter assembly comprising:
a filter cage (fig. 2 lower half of housing 124) received within a carriage (fig. 2 upper half of housing 124) (fig. 2);
and a filter element (filter medium 126) positioned within the filter cage (figs. 2-6), the filter element comprising a perimetral skirt (outer portion 138), wherein the perimetral skirt sealingly engages a portion of the filter cage (par. 25 and 34).
Regarding claims 2 and 16,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the perimetral skirt is configured to block a fluid path between the filter element and an inner wall of the filter cage (par. 34).
Regarding claims 5 and 18,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the filter element comprises a fabric shell defining an interior cavity, a filter media received in the interior cavity, a fabric top affixed to the fabric shell, the perimetral skirt formed at a perimeter of the fabric top (claim 16 and par. 34).
Regarding claim 6,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the filter media comprises active carbon (claim 16 and par. 34).
Regarding claims 7 and 19,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the filter cage comprises one or more axial ribs extending radially inward from a filter cage wall along a portion of a length of the filter cage (see annotated fig. 2 below);
and wherein the perimetral skirt includes one or more notches formed at a perimeter of the perimetral skirt to sealingly engage the one or more axial ribs (see annotated fig. 2 below upper half of housing 124 has a complimentary shape to lower half of housing 124 which is an axial rib and filter medium 126 also has a notch shape that is the same as housing 124 which is a notch).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 20,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the one or more notches engage the one or more axial ribs securing the filter element against rotation in the filter cage (see fig. 3 where the indentation feature of housing 124 which is an axial rib and the complimentary shape, notch, of filter 126 are engaged together).
Regarding claim 9,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the carriage (as discussed above) comprises:
a first mating portion (attachment member 150);
and a bottom wall of the removable reservoir includes a second mating portion (fitting 122, par. 20 provides for fitting 122 to be integrally formed with reservoir 108);
and wherein the first mating portion and the second mating portion releasably engage to form a watertight engagement (par. 28 teaches the interface forming a fluid seal and that that seal is formed by o ring seal member 152 which is a releasable engagement).
Regarding claim 10,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein:
the first mating portion and the second mating portion are configured to axially align and rotationally couple (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12,
Mitchell teaches,
wherein the carriage, the filter cage, and the filter element define an axial flow path for water from the removable reservoir (par. 32 and 33 teach the flow path of water from reservoir 108).
Regarding claim 15,
Mitchell teaches,
A household appliance (beverage dispenser 100) defining a radial direction and an axial direction (fig. 1), the household appliance comprising:
a removable reservoir (108);
a water filter assembly (water filter assembly 120) comprising:
a filter cage (fig. 2 lower half of housing 124) received within a carriage (fig. 2 upper half of housing 124) (fig. 2);
and a filter element (filter medium 126) positioned within the filter cage (figs. 2-6), the filter element comprises a perimetral skirt (outer portion 138);
and wherein the perimetral skirt sealingly engaging a portion of the filter cage (par. 25 and 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 tx`he 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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170008774 A1 Mitchell in view of US10118113B2 Shotey.
Regarding claims 3 and 17,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Mitchell does not teach: wherein the perimetral skirt is formed from an elastomer.
Shotey is considered analogous prior art, a filter assembly for a household appliance. Shotey also teaches a perimetral skirt (250) formed as an elastomer seal (Col. 16, ll. 60-67). Shotey also teaches the perimetral skirt is formed from an elastomer (Shotey teaches silicone column 16 lines 60 to 67 and column 17 lines 1 to 8)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the improvement taught by Shotey would have been capable of being applied to the outer portion 138 of Mitchell and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art because Shotey teaches that the use of the seal 250 to provide a liquid seal (Shotey column 16 lines 60 to 67 and column 17 lines 1 to 8)
Regarding claims 4 and 17,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Mitchell does not teach: wherein the elastomer comprises silicone..
Shotey teaches that floatable body 230 contains a perimetrical skirt as seal 250 and further teaches wherein the elastomer comprises silicone (Shotey teaches silicone column 16 lines 60 to 67 and column 17 lines 1 to 8).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the improvement taught by Shotey would have been capable of being applied to the outer portion 138 of Mitchell and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art because Shotey teaches that the use of a silicone seal in seal 250 to provide a liquid seal (Shotey column 16 lines 60 to 67 and column 17 lines 1 to 8).
Regarding claim 11,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Mitchell does not teach: wherein:
the first mating portion comprises a threaded section;
and the second mating portion comprises a complementary threaded section.
Shotey is considered analogous prior art, a filter assembly for a household appliance. Shotey also teaches the first mating portion (filter sleeve 20) comprises a threaded section (column 11 lines 49 to 67 and column 12 lines 1 to 23);
and the second mating portion (pitcher 2) comprises a complementary threaded section (column 11 lines 49 to 67 and column 12 lines 1 to 23).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of attaching two items together.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Shotey teaching a pitcher and filter sleeve being fastened together by a complimentary threading can be substituted for the o ring style attachment method that attaches attachment member 150 and fitting 122 of Mitchell because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try fastening parts together via threading to provide a connection.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170008774 A1 Mitchell in view of US20170119205A1 Powell.
Regarding claim 13,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Mitchell does not teach: wherein the axial flow path includes a normally closed check valve configured to engage with a base, wherein engagement with the base positions the check valve in an open position facilitating a flow of water along the axial flow path from the removable reservoir.
Powell teaches a household water filter assembly 120 and further teaches the axial flow path (created by the flow path of the unfiltered water through filter medium 134 and to a filtered water chamber 140 per par. 46 and 47) includes a normally closed check valve (one-way valve 180 par. 46 and 47 is normally closed until a pressure differential is reached) configured to engage with a base (housing cap 160), wherein engagement with the base positions the check valve in an open position facilitating a flow of water along the axial flow path from the removable reservoir (par. 46 to 47 teaches the flow path and normal state of the check valve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a check valve to fitting 122 of Mitchell as taught by Powell for the purpose to prevent unfiltered water form reentering a filtered reservoir (Powell par. 11).
Regarding claim 14,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Mitchell does not teach: wherein the check valve is included in the carriage.
Powell teaches wherein the check valve (as discussed above) is included in the carriage (first filter cap 158 is a filter carriage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a check valve to fitting 122 of Mitchell as taught by Powell for the purpose to prevent unfiltered water form reentering a filtered reservoir (Powell par. 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights