DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in the modification of the previous prior art rejections.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page numbers at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the previous 103 prior art rejections and previous 112 rejections, and the amendments made in response.
On pages 7-10, Applicant discusses the amended limitation to independent Claim 1, in which a peristaltic pump is now claimed. Applicant elaborates on the benefits of using a peristaltic pump as further explained in the instant Specification. Next, on pages 10-12, Applicant notes that previous primary reference Helmlinger (U.S. 7,770,757), discloses a piston and cylinder type pump instead, and previous secondary reference Takanohashi (U.S. 2009/0188919 A1) does not disclose this limitation either. In response, the Examiner notes that these references do not disclose a peristaltic pump, but rather previous secondary reference Miller et al. (U.S. 9,440,205), discloses this limitation instead. Thus, these remarks are considered piecemeal analysis, and are unpersuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On pages 13-14, Applicant discusses Miller but does not appear to provide any specific arguments against its usage, so Examiner finds this remark moot.
Then, on pages 14-15, Applicant notes that independent Claim 1 now includes the limitation of the “chamber” in which an outlet of the splitter has a line opening to the chamber with a diameter that is a fraction of the diameter of the inlet of the splitter. Applicant argues that neither Helmlinger or secondary reference Takanohashi discloses such a chamber for use in association with a ‘peristaltic pump’ and does not show the line opening to the chamber that is a fraction of a diameter of the inlet of the splitter. Here, the Examiner notes that primary reference Helmlinger already discloses the features with a chamber of a splitter disposed between an inlet and outlet thereof, the line opening to the chamber that is a fraction of a diameter of the inlet of the splitter as demonstrated in the prior art rejection section below. In response to applicant's argument that the peristaltic pump is not disclosed in Helmlinger or Takanohashi, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference such as Miller’s peristaltic pump may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On page 14, Applicant begins arguments against independent Claim 15. Applicant repeats the same remarks for Claim 15 as for independent Claim 1 above. In response, the Examiner reiterates the same response above. Next, Applicant also notes that the limitations of dependent Claim 20 are included in independent Claim 15 now, and argues against the previous prior art rejection disclosing this feature. Specifically, Applicant argues that secondary reference Mukaddam, (US 8,016,260), does not disclose this limitation in relation to a splitter or peristaltic pump. The Examiner notes that Mukaddam does not disclose a circuitous path in the chamber of the splitter as claimed. Thus, the Examiner has withdrawn this rejection for independent Claim 15 and its dependent Claim 17, and also for dependent Claim 13.
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 1, 8, 14, 15 and their dependent claims 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:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the line” on the second-to-last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an inlet”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “an inlet” already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said pump” on lines 2 & 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as the “peristaltic pump” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said system” on lines 11-12 and on line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the inlet” on line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the line” on line 21 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 8, 11 & 14 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), in further view of Miller et al. (U.S. 9,440,205), hereinafter Miller.
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.
the splitter D includes an outlet connected to opening of line 9 wherein line 9 is a capillary that would be a fraction of the diameter of the inlet to the splitter at 7
Helmlinger doesn’t specify his container to a bottle having a neck and cap, wherein the cap includes the channel and return line, or his pump being a peristaltic pump. 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.
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. 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.
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 peristaltic pump structure of modified Helmlinger has the ability to perform the function thereof (see col. 4, lines 21+).
As for claim 11, 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: after withdrawing the previous prior art rejection for dependent Claim 13 and for independent Claim 15 and its dependent Claim 17 for the reasons laid out in the Response to Arguments section, the Examiner has conducted further searching and consideration of the prior art in the relevant fields of endeavor. After doing so, the Examiner has determined that the limitation in Claim 13 & 15 involving “wherein a circuitous path is formed in the chamber of said splitter, the liquid mineral or supplement flowing the circuitous path prior to entering the line to the outlet of said splitter”, is allowable over the closest prior art such as Helmlinger (U.S. 7,770,757) and Takanohashi (U.S. 2009/0188919 A1). Thus, the Examiner indicates that these claims would be allowable once the 112 issues indicated above are resolved.
Claim 13 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/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.
Prosecution Insights