DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wrapping” associated with the limitation, “the combined activated charcoal and biochar layer is wrapped in another non-woven fabric” as recited in dependent claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of HAQUE (US 4,913,808) and ADAMSON (US 20230227331 A1).
HAQUE discloses a multistage filter with unlabeled first and second covers and a plurality of sequential interior filter layers 24, 26, 28 and 32 all disposed within housing 12 as clearly depicted in Figs. 1 and/or 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
895
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 specifies “at least one biochar-based water purification system” which does not appear to be expressly disclosed by HAQUE.
ADAMSON discloses a water filtration system employing a “capture bed comprises powder, granules, beads, pellets, cloths, felts, nonwoven fabrics, or composites comprising a material selected from carbon, nitrogen-doped carbon, boron-doped carbon, charcoal, graphite, biochar, coke, carbon black, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the capture bed comprises activated charcoal powder, granules, pellets, beads, or any combination thereof.” See paragraph “[0075]” and/or claims 39 and/or 95.
In view of the teachings of ADAMSON, it would have been obvious to modify the water filtration system of HAQUE to include layers and/or mixtures of biochar and an activated charcoal since these materials are taught to be effective water filtration agents, thus meeting the limitations of claim 1.
While HAQUE does not appear to specify “non-woven fabric” as specified in dependent claims 2 and 3, a “sub-micron filtration material” is specified in the last two lines of claim 1 of HAQUE, with the submicron filtration material being specified to be nylon in claim 5 of HAQUE. In view of the teachings of ADAMSON specified above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a “non-woven” fabric to accomplish filtration. Absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality specifically associated therewith, “0.3 micron sized” is seen to be patentably indistinguishable from the “sub-micron filtration material” of HAQUE. Moreover, HAQUE would most certainly capture some “0.3 micron sized” particles by van der waal forces, etc., even if the pore size was not 0.3 microns in diameter, which is NOT specified by claim 3.
Claims 4-6 are seen to be met by the apparatus of the references as combined, since the combination of activated charcoal and biochar is clearly taught by ADAMSON, and the interior layers, or a mixture thereof are clearly disclosed as being sequential (as clearly depicted in the figures of HAQUE), and thus the layers could “receive” fluid that has passed through an adjacent layer.
Claim 7 specifies a “one-to-one ratio of biochar to activated charcoal”, while claim 8 specifies the layer to be six grams of each. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results specifically associated with these claimed metrics, such a ratio or corresponding amounts would have been obvious selections of one skilled in the art, and are not seen to patentably distinguish these claims over the applied references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of HAQUE (US 4,913,808) and ADAMSON (US 20230227331 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of VILLA (US 5,087,357).
Wrapping the filtration media of the references as combined above, in another non-woven fabric, as required by claim 9, would have been obvious in view of the teachings of VILLA, which clearly teaches wrapplng of filtration media in a bag 25. Claim 10 is seen to be met as modified since the width of the layer could be expressed in centimeters.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of HAQUE (US 4,913,808) and ADAMSON (US 20230227331 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of PIERIK (US 9,878,289).
Claim 11 specifies, “wherein the first cover is configured to receive a water bottle mouth, and wherein the first cover is configured as a threaded interior to receive a threaded exterior of a water bottle” which is not taught by the references as combined above. PIERIK teaches the connection of a bottle to a filter with threads, e.g. “33” as depicted in Figures 3a and 3b. In view of PIERIK, it would have been obvious modify the apparatus of the references as applied above by employing interior threaded portions to facilitate connection of a bottle to a filter, as taught by PIERIK.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of HAQUE (US 4,913,808) and ADAMSON (US 20230227331 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of BARLOW (US 2017/0240449 A1).
The refences as applied above do not appear to expressly disclose a “housing element composed of hard plastic.” BARLOW teaches, “[0029] As may be seen in FIGS. 1 and 4, the apparatus 12 has an outer shell 14, and a generally hollow interior within that outer shell 14. The outer shell 14 is made from a hard, durable food grade polymer or plastic. A preferred plastic is acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). As may be seen in FIG. 4, this outer shell 14 defines a hollow, elongated inner chamber 16.” It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the references as combined above, by employing “hard plastic” to provide a durable housing. That is, making the disclosed “hollow cylinder” of HAQUE of “hard plastic” to make it more durable as taught by BARLOW. With respect to apparently, duplicate claims 14 and 15, housing element 14 of HAQUE is a “hollow cylinder”.
Claim 12 has been interpreted to be merely claiming a “knob”. BARLOW discloses a “knob” which obviously, could be used to couple the filter of the references as combined above to attach it to a “straw filtration system”, as one skilled in the art would have readily appreciated at the time the invention was made.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-13 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
At line 3 of claim 1, “the interior elements” lacks clear positive antecedent basis.
At line 2 of claim 5, “the output liquid” lacks clear positive antecedent basis. Also, it is unclear what is intended by step of receiving, i.e., “receives”, or what structure this language intends. For the purposes of the art rejections, “receives” has been taken to mean that the “activated charcoal and biochar layer” is downstream of the “non-woven fabric”.
In claim 10, it is unclear what “n-centimeters in width” intends, or how this language limits the claim, or claim 9 from which claim 10 depends.
In claim 12, it is unclear what is intended by, “wherein the first cover is configured as a knob coupling system inserting and attaching a straw filtration system.” It is unclear what this language intends, and is therefore indefinite. Is Applicant merely claiming a “knob”? It is unclear what the method steps “inserting and attaching” are intended to define, if anything. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.
In claim 13, it is unclear what the relative and subjective recitation, “hard” intends. This language is subject to numerous interpretations and is therefore indefinite.
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered reflective of the pertinent state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
