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 Objection
Applicant is respectfully requested to correct all typographical errors in the claims, including “characterised” in claim 1, which should be “characterized”.
Claim 4 recites “claim 1, that also includes a power source”. Claim 1 is objected to because “that also includes” is not consistent with US patent claim language. Applicants are encouraged to amend claim 4 to recite “claim 1, further comprises a power source”.
Claim 7 recites “one or more elements selected from: -a timer (16), -a switch (17)”. Claim 7 is objected to because it is not consistent with US patent claim language. Applicants are encouraged to amend 7 claim 7 to recite “at least one element selected from the group of a timer and a switch”.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. Lines 9-10 recites “a support (8) in the form of a lid or plug”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “support” is something other than a lid or plug. That is, it is unclear what “in the form of” means in relation to “a lid or plug”. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is understood as “where the elements of the device (1) are mounted on a support (8) , wherein the support is a lid or a plug.
Claims 4 and 5 are deemed indefinite. Claim 1 recites “a flow (6) of air”, claim 4 recites “the air flow (6)”, claim 5 recites “flow (6)” and “the flow (6) of air”. It is unclear if “the air flow (6)”, as recited in claim 4, and “flow (6)”, as recited in claim 5, is the same or separate and distinct as “flow (6) of air”, as recited in claims 1 and 5. Applicants are encouraged to recite consistent claim language in each of the claims.
Claim 5 is deemed indefinite. Lines 2- 8 recite “the power source includes a rechargeable battery (11), a power supply circuit (13) that is connected to the ozone generator (4) and the air flow (6) impeller (5), and an adapter (14) to the characteristics of the ozone generator (4) and of the impeller (5) of the flow (6) of air with ozone, arranged in said power supply circuit (13)”. First, it is unclear if “the air flow (6) impeller” is the same as “the air flow (6)” and “the impeller (5)” or separate and distinct, such as a new feature “the air flow (6) impeller (5)”. Second, it is unclear if the adapter is a component of the claimed power source or is a component of the claimed power supply circuit, i.e. “an adapter…arranged in said power circuit”. Applicant may consider amending a portion of claim 5 as follows:
Device (1) for disinfection of a drink (2) in a container (3) according to claim 4, wherein comprises i
Claim 6 is deemed indefinite because it is dependent upon itself. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is understood as being dependent upon claim 5.
Claims 2,3, and 7 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2019/149983 (hereinafter WO 983) (WO 983 was filed on January 1, 2019 and was published on August 8, 2019. WO 983 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).) (US 2021/0047212 (hereinafter US 212) is herein cited as the English language translation of WO 983).
Regarding claim 1, US 212 discloses a device (1) for disinfection of a drink (2) in a container (3) (see US 212 figure 1-2 and paragraphs 0001 & 0005-0009).
US 212 discloses an ozone generator(4) (see US 212 figure 2 and paragraphs 0007, 0021, 0025).
US 212 discloses an impeller (5) of a flow (6) of air, connected to the ozone generator (4), to pass said flow (6) through it (see US 212 figure 2, claim 6 and paragraphs 0008, 0022, and 0025).
US 212 discloses a duct (7) arranged at the outlet of the ozone generator (4), to conduct the flow (6) of air with ozone towards the drink (2) (see US 212 figure 2 and paragraph 0024).
US 212 discloses the elements of the device (1) are mounted on a support (8) in the form of a lid or plug, suited to the mouth (30) of the container (3) (see US 212 figures 1-2, abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0021, 0025 and 0026).
It is noted that the “a support in the form of a lid or plug” as well as “the mouth of the container” and “a container” are understood as being not elements of the claimed device. That is, the elements of the claimed device are mounted on a support, which is then “suited to the mouth of the container”.
Nevertheless, even if “a support in the form of a lid or plug” as well as “the mouth of the container” and “a container” are elements of the claimed device, US 212 is deemed to disclose a support in the form of a lid or plug, suited to the mouth of the container. US 212 discloses the ozone generator is integrated in the base of the container and the “base (30) will be ideally practicable to be able to access for replacement, assembly or repair to any of the elements housed therein” (see US 212 paragraphs 0007, 0021 and 0025). US 212 discloses a lid on top of the container (see US 212 paragraph 0026 and figure 2). Either the base or the lid of US 212 is deemed to disclose the elements of the device (1) are mounted on a support (8) in the form of a lid or plug, suited to the mouth (30) of the container (3).
Herein the term “mounted on” is understood as connecting, fixed or attaching at least two elements together.
Herein, the “elements of the device (1) are mounted on a support (8)” is understood as two or more elements of the device are mounted on a support. In US 212 the ozone generator, the blower/turbine and the duct are formed within the base (see US 212 figure 2). In US 212 all components of the device are formed in the container/base, which is mounted to the lid.
Regarding claim 2, US 212 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 212 discloses the support (8) includes a means of adjustment to the mouth (30) of the container (3) (see US 212 figure 2 and paragraph 0025 (US 212 discloses a switch for activation of operations, which is deemed the support includes a means of adjusting to the mouth of the container).
The as-originally filed specification does not define the term “means of adjustment”. The as-originally filed specification discloses “a means of adjustment it to the mouth (30) of the container (3) (such as threads or fittings) to achieve a good closure and improve use of the ozone” (see Applicant’s specification page 2).
Herein, the term “means of adjustment” is understood as a means of adjustment of ozone entering into the mouth of the container, which a switch for activation achieves.
Regarding claim 3, US 212 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 212 discloses the support (8) includes a mouthpiece (9) (see US 212 figures 1-2).
Herein the term “mouthpiece” is understood a component that allows the user’s mouth to connect with the support. US 212 will necessarily have a mouthpiece, which is understood as a portion which the user’s mouth is capable of connecting, wherein the support being the base, has the lid removed from the container.
Regarding claim 4, US 212 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 212 discloses a power source for the ozone generator (4) and for the impeller (5) of the air flow (6),integrated into the support (8) (see US 212 figure 2 and paragraph 0025).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 212 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of https://mannahydration.com/collections/lid-replacements?srsltid=AfmBOoo_2gtvzl5_-bRgJ_K7ZAgKcAgFSY_FfWdQQ0ZiuveXfK0MiGdb (published June 30, 2020; retrieved November 6, 2025) (hereinafter Manna).
Regarding claim 3, US 212 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 212 does not disclose the support (8) includes a mouthpiece (9) US 212 discloses a lid (see US 212 figures 1-2 and paragraph 0026).
Manna discloses various lid replacements, many of which includes a mouthpiece.
Manna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. beverage container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the lid, as disclosed in US 212, with a lid having a mouthpiece, as disclosed in Manna, because it would assist with the dispensing of the treated liquid in the container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the lid, as disclosed in US 212, with a lid having a mouthpiece, as disclosed in Manna, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of being a lid.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 212 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 5900143 (hereinafter US 143).
Regarding claim 5, US 212 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, US 212 discloses the power source includes a rechargeable battery (11) (see US 212 figure 3 and paragraph 0025).
US 212 does not disclose a power supply circuit (13) that is connected to the ozone generator (4) and the airflow (6) impeller (5), and an adapter (14) to the characteristics of the ozone generator (4) and of the impeller (5) of the flow (6) of air with ozone, arranged in said power supply circuit (13).
US 143 discloses a portable container that purifies water within the container comprising an ozone generator and an air pump for delivering air to the ozone generator (see US 143 abstract, figure 1, col 1 lines 16-25; col 2 lines 32-35). US 143 discloses a power supply circuit (see US 143 figure 3), the “circuit for the ozone generating means 10 is shown in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, there is shown a mains supply 42 which is connected to a rectifier 44 via a resistance R1 and a capacitor C1” (see US 143 col 3 lines 16-19), the ” silicon controlled rectifier SCR1, the capacitor C3 and the primary winding L1 of the transformer T1 form a capacitor discharge circuit 48” (see US 143 col 3 lines 29-31). US 143 discloses “during operation of the container 2, a mains A.C. supply voltage is supplied via the resistance R1 and the capacitor C1 to the bridge rectifier 44. The power supply is powered from a full wave unsmoothed d.c. voltage to the silicon controlled rectifier SCR1 pulse firing circuit which includes the two neon lamps NE1 and NE2 feeding a negative d.c. supply via the resistance R2” (see US 143 col 3 lines 45-52).
US 143 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water purification via ozone generator and/or beverage container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power source, as disclosed in US 212, by including a power supply circuit, as disclosed in US 143, which includes a rectifier, transformer, capacitor, transformer, because it would assist with powering the liquid purifier, as disclosed in US 212, which comprises an ozone generator and a blower.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power source, as disclosed in US 212, by including a power supply circuit, as disclosed in US 143, which includes a rectifier, transformer, capacitor, transformer, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide power to the components of the liquid purifier, as disclosed in US 212.
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify the system of US 212 in view of US 143 to form a power source that includes a rechargeable battery (11), a power supply circuit (13) that is connected to the ozone generator (4) and the airflow (6) impeller (5), and an adapter (14) to the characteristics of the ozone generator (4) and of the impeller (5) of the flow (6) of air with ozone, arranged in said power supply circuit (13).
Regarding claim 7, US 212 in view of US 143 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, US 212 in view of US 143 discloses the power supply circuit also includes one or more elements selected from a timer (16) a switch (17) (see US 212 paragraph 0025 (US 212 discloses a timer, a programmer and a switch).).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 212 in view of US 143 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of https://www.homedepot.com/p/Makita-18V-LXT-Lithium-Ion-High-Capacity-Battery-Pack-5-0-Ah-with-LED-Charge-Level-Indicator-2-Pack-BL1850B-2/206609332#see-more-details (published 2014; retrieved November 6, 2025) (hereinafter Home Depot).
Regarding claim 6, US 212 in view of US 143 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6 (understood as being dependent upon claim 5). Further, US 212 in view of US 143 does not disclose the rechargeable battery (11) includes a charge level indicator.
Home Depot discloses a rechargeable lithium ion battery that has an LED charge level indicator (see Home Depot title and pages 1, 4-5). Home Depot discloses that the LED charge level indicator allows one to monitor the battery charge level (see Home Depot pages 4-5).
Home Depot is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). Home Depot is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. powering a disinfecting device for disinfecting a drink container (see Applicant’s specification page 1).), because Home Depot discloses a rechargeable battery that can power various devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or substitute the rechargeable battery, as disclosed in US 212, with a rechargeable battery with a charge level indicator light, as disclosed in Home Depot, because it would assist with providing information about the battery power and/or because it would be easier for a user to know when a new battery is needed, i.e. low battery level is indicated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or substitute the rechargeable battery, as disclosed in US 212, with a rechargeable battery with a charge level indicator light, as disclosed in Home Depot, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide power and provide user with information about the rechargeable battery.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-270-5954. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772