11DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuman (4780197).
Claim 1: Schuman teaches a water treatment device (abstract) for reducing hard water scaling (intended use), comprising: a head portion (40); an inlet (42, “IN”) and an outlet (44, “OUT”) in fluid connection with the head portion (see arrows depicting flow of liquid); a water treatment container (28), operably connectable to the head portion, the water treatment container further comprising a cavity (48) at least partially filled with a water treatment composition (56); wherein when the water treatment container is connected to the head portion, the inlet and outlet are in fluid communication with the cavity through at least two openings in the inlet (42 and 43) and a single opening in the outlet (44).
Claim 2: the water treatment device includes a valve (72 and/or 78).
Claim 3: the valve portion is located apart from the head portion (72 and/or 78).
Claim 6: the device of claim 1 further comprising a releasable coupling between the body and the filter head or removal and replacement of the cartridge (column 6, lines 52-53)(40, where the filter comes off and can be put back on the base 40).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Terry (USP 7297257).
Claim 1: Terry teaches a water treatment device (abstract) for reducing hard water scaling (intended use), comprising: a head portion (30); an inlet (32) and an outlet (36) in fluid connection with the head portion (see arrows depicting flow of liquid); a water treatment container (20), operably connectable to the head portion, the water treatment container further comprising a cavity (inside of 20) at least partially filled with a water treatment composition (72); wherein when the water treatment container is connected to the head portion, the inlet and outlet are in fluid communication with the cavity through at least two openings in the inlet (32 and 42) and a single opening in the outlet (36).
Claim 4: the container comprises a water permeable pouch containing a water treatment composition (col. 8, 10-20).
Claim 6: a releasable coupling makes the bag replaceable (col. 3, 53-63).
Claim 7: the bag comprises citric acid and polyphosphate as water treatment compounds (col. 4, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 1-7).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terry (USP 7297257).
Claim 5: Terry does not teach how the pouch (“bag”) is sealed or closed.
The bag is pictured in Figure 3 at 70 as being separate from the housing and containing the treatment media. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the bag is properly sealed to prevent leaking or loss of the treatment media.
While Terry does not teach the specific mechanism of sealing, zippers, stitching, heat adhesives, and contact adhesives are all fundamental and well-known types of sealings/closures. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use one of these basic type of closures to close Terry’s bag or Terry used one of these fundamental type of closures because they are recognized for their use in the art as closing mechanisms.
Claims 8: Terry does not teach the ratio of citric acid to polyphosphate.
Terry teaches that “it is believed the phosphates serve a dual purpose of cleaning as well as buffering, and the chelating agent citric acid serves the dual function of dissolving scale and preventing precipitation of phosphates.” The amount of phosphate and citric acid in the combination, and the ratio representing their relationship, is a routinely optimized result effective variable that is adjusted to control the scale preventing characteristics and the chelating characteristics of the filter media depending on the fluid and the nature of the fluid being treated. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571)270-3960. 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.
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773