DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 1, line 1, “a” should be added after “for”.
Claim 2, line 1, “of” should be added after “channel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
The following terms lack antecedent basis: “the straw” (claim 6, line 2).
In claim 15, the limitation of “a system adapted to filter” is unclear since the recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). A review of the specification, shows a filter (42, 44) for filtering fluid. Did Applicant intend to claim the structure of a filter for the corresponding function?
Claims 16-20 are also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
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 that are applied 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 1-2, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger (U.S. 7,770,757) in view of Takanohashi (U.S. 2009/0188919 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Helmlinger teaches a micro-dosing system for water mineralization process1, the micro-dosing system comprising:
a container 2 having a liquid mineral or supplement therein, the container defining an interior volume and having a top; the top having a channel 5 formed through said top, the channel communicating with the interior volume of said container, said top having a return passage 6 formed therein, the return passage communicating with the interior volume of said bottle;
a pump 3 connected to the channel of said top, said pump adapted to draw the liquid mineral or supplement through the channel; and
a splitter D connected to said pump and with the channel of said top, said splitter having an outlet (connected to 9) formed thereon, said outlet passing a portion of the liquid mineral or supplement from the channel of said top therefrom, said splitter having a return line 7 communicating with the return passage 6 of said top, the return line adapted to pass a remainder of the liquid mineral or supplement back to the return passage of said top and into the interior volume of said container.
Helmlinger doesn’t specify his container to a bottle having a neck and cap, wherein the cap includes the channel and return line. However, such is taught by Takanohashi.
Takanohashi
PNG
media_image2.png
483
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
teaches a bottle 1 (0003) including a neck (at container inlet 2) and cap ((10+31+50), wherein the cap includes both a channel (connected to 60) and return passage (connected to 62) [as in claim 1] and a straw 13 [as in claim 2]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Helmlinger with the bottle and cap structure of Takanohashi, since doing so would have predictably provided an integrated container interface having both supply and return passages through the cap, thereby simplifying fluid connections, improving sealing and facilitating replacement of the container.
As for claims 4-6, Takanohashi teaches his cap to include an upper surface (19 and also 31) extending across the opening of the neck and an annular portion (of portion 10) bearing against an inner wall of the neck of the bottle and a tubular portion (about the upper end of 13) having the straw extending therefrom.
As for claim 8, the structure of Helmlinger has the ability to perform the function thereof (see col. 4, lines 21+).
As for claims 9-10 and 12, the splitter D of Helmlinger includes an outlet connected to line 9 wherein line 9 is a capillary that would be a fraction of the diameter of the inlet to the splitter at 7, wherein the fraction being e.g. one-tenth would have been within ordinary skill because the ratio of conduit diameters is a result-effective variable that directly controls flow rate, and optimizing such a variable through routine experimentation to achieve a desired dosing rate would have ben will within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger, as modified above in the rejection of claims 1 and 12, respectively and in further view of Miller et al. (U.S. 9,440,205), hereinafter Miller. The modified Helmlinger doesn’t specify his pump being a peristaltic pump, but such is taught by Miller. Miller teaches a pump 114 that is a peristaltic pump [as in claim 7]. Miller also teaches hoses 116a and 116b to flow to and from the peristaltic pump, as well as a hose 117 for the return flow [as in claim 14]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the pump and hoses of Miller in the invention of the modified Helmlinger since Miller also teaches a system for micro dosing that includes a container having a channel with pump connections and a return channel through a cap thereof and because substitution of parts for the same purpose would have been within ordinary skill.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger, as modified above and in further view of Kobayashi et. al. (U.S. 2017/0370512), hereinafter “K”.
The modified Helmlinger doesn’t specify that the return passage is annular and surround the channel of the cap. However, K teaches a return channel 230 that is annular and surrounds that channel 220a. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the surrounding annular arrangement of K in the invention of the modified Helmlinger, since K teaches an integrated arrangement for both withdrawal and return that is a compact, coaxial structure at the container opening, thereby reducing routing complexity and conserving space at the cap interface.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger, as modified above in the rejection of claim 12, and in further view of Mukaddam et al. (U.S. 8,016,260), hereinafter “M”.
The modified Helmlinger doesn’t specify the chamber of the splitter to cause liquid to flow along a circuitous path prior to leaving the splitter, but such is taught by M.
As shown in figure 6, M teaches a metering chamber including a tortuous flow path. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the chamber D of the modified Helmlinger to include the torturous (circuitous) flow of M, since M teaches the benefits of a metering chamber that enhances flow conditioning and reduces bubble formation before discharge (col. 17, lines 20+).
Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger in view of Takanohashi and in further view of Jeong et al. (U.S. 10,031,533), hereinafter “Jeong”. These claims differ from the modified Helmlinger (expanded above in the rejection of claim 1) in that they require a system adapted to filter and mineralize water, the system having a container receptacle assembly formed or affixed thereto. Jeong system for filtering and mineralizing water (abstract) including a filter 20 and a container receptacle 150 (figure 3). It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the system and container receptacle of Jeong in the invention of the modified Helmlinger in order to provide a self-contained system capable of receiving a replaceable container of additive and filtering the carrier fluid prior to dosing and dispensing thereby improving fluid quality, user convenience and system integration.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger, as modified in the rejection of claim 15 and in further view of Miller et al. (U.S. 9,440,205), hereinafter Miller. The modified Helmlinger doesn’t specify his pump being a peristaltic pump, but such is taught by Miller. Miller teaches a pump 114 that is a peristaltic pump [as in claim 7]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the pump of Miller in the invention of the modified Helmlinger since Miller also teaches a system for micro dosing that includes a container having a channel with pump and a return channel through a cap thereof and because substitution of parts for the same purpose would have been within ordinary skill.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmlinger, as modified in the rejection of claim 15 and in further view of Mukaddam et al. (U.S. 8,016,260), hereinafter “M”.
The modified Helmlinger doesn’t specify the chamber of the splitter to cause liquid to flow along a circuitous path prior to leaving the splitter, but such is taught by M.
As shown in figure 6, M teaches a metering chamber including a tortuous flow path. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the chamber D of the modified Helmlinger to include the torturous (circuitous) flow of M, since M teaches the benefits of a metering chamber that enhances flow conditioning and reduces bubble formation before discharge (col. 17, lines 20+).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1For water mineralization process” is considered to be an intended use of the system that fails to further structurally define the invention beyond the elements listed in the body of the claim.