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 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: consumer assembly in claims 1 and 9, interpreted in view the instant specification to include e.g. lavatories having sinks and toilets
or galleys with steam ovens and sinks, or equivalents thereof and of supply device in claims 1 and 9, interpreted in view of the instant specification to include toilets, sinks, faucets, galleys, ovens, equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 1-15 are 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.
The term “high” pressure in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,534,387 in view of Browne (US PG Pub 2019/0210903).
The reference patent claims 1 and 8 require substantially the same limitations of instant claims 1 and 9 of a method and system requiring a central water tank, consumer assemblies comprising supply devices and buffer tanks, a pump configured to operate in a supply mode and a reverse mode, a high-pressure conduit system. The reference application requires a filter arranged upstream of the pump to deliver water to the buffer tank, while the instant application requires a treatment inlet arranged downstream of the pump, examiner notes the use of filters with treatment medium connected to tanks as part of galleys and lavatories is known in the art as shown by Browne, Browne teaches a system for treating hard water in aircraft potable water systems and prevention of scale deposits in aircraft water system components such as lavatories and galleys comprising an anti-scale or scale reduction cartridge with a modular media cartridge with a chemical composition (abstract, 0001-0005), an exemplary lavatory or galley water tank with the cartridge connected to the inlet of the tank (0019-0020), the system provides filtration (0041-0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter or treatment between the pump and the tank as the use of filtration/treatment directly prior to water tanks in lavatories and galleys is known in the art as shown by Brown and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, the reference application teaches each consumer assembly with a buffer tank (claim 1), Browne teaches use in lavatories and galleys and the cartridge appears to be attached to an inlet, and to be in-line with a conduit (figures).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, the reference application teaches the consumer assembly configured to supply water from the buffer tank via the supply device.
With respect to claim 4 and 12, the reference application teaches a plurality of assemblies and valves with a closed and an open position wherein when the pump is operated in the supply mode, the outlet valve is in the closed position and when the pump is operated in the reverse mode, the outlet valve is in the open or in the closed position (claims 1, 4 11), while the taugth combination does not explicilty teach inlet valves, the use of inlet or isolation valves in inlets would be an obvious design choice to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for isolation of different areas or components.
With respect to claims 5 and 13 align with reference claims 3 and 10.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, the reference patent provides a plurality of consumer assemblies.
Claim 15 aligns with reference claim 15.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,534,387 in view of Browne (US PG Pub 2019/0210903), in view of Benisti (US PG Pub 2018/0360047).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, the reference patent teaches a central tank, buffer tanks, and operation in a reverse mode, Brown teaches the chemical composition in the cartridge can include softening agents or other media that performs different functions such as to purify, remove particulates and/or to inhibit the growth of algae, fungi, bacteria, etc.; while the reference patent and Browne do not explicitly provide filling the buffer tank to a maximum fill level once the treatment medium has been provided to the buffer tank, or draining and flushing the system, these functions would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of at least Benisti, Benisti teaches compositions that can disinfect water storage systems aboard aircraft, and that tanks must be cleaned and flushed, and composition is added to the tank and the tank filled completely (0165-0166, 0185-0186).
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims can be indicated as allowable until the rejections above are properly overcome.
However, as best understood, claims 1-15 appear to be free from the prior art.
The closest prior art is represented by Schreiner (US PG Pub 2014/0076824) Schreiner teaches a bidirectional disinfection device for an aircraft water supply system (0001-00010) comprising bypassing a pump (0031-0035). However, the prior art alone or in combination does not provide teaching or motivation for the full scope of the instant invention, in particular of a pump that operates in a supply mode and a reverse mode to supply buffer tanks for consumer assemblies, the buffer tanks comprising treatment inlets and treatment medium forming a treatment solution in the buffer tanks, in combination with the additional limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lubbert (US 10/822,774), Williams (US 2010/0243581), Otto (US 2014/0076824), Seewang (US 2018/0338666), Reiss (US 2014/0158219) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights