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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/KR2023/000897, filed 19 January 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (KR10-2022-0013056, filed 28 January 2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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:
“an escape preventing unit configured to prevent the cleaning agent accommodated in a dry state inside the case from escaping outside the case” in Claim 1;
“a plurality of escape preventing members” in Claim 2; and
“an escape preventing unit configured to prevent the cleaning agent accommodated in a dry state inside the case from escaping outside the case” in Claim 8.
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.
“The escape preventing unit 200 may include a plurality of escape preventing members 210” (par. 52)… “the escape preventing members 210 may have a mesh structure” (par. 54);
“the escape preventing members 210 may have a mesh structure” (par. 54); and
“The escape preventing unit 200 may include a plurality of escape preventing members 210” (par. 52)… “the escape preventing members 210 may have a mesh structure” (par. 54).
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the solid cleaning agent”; Claim 1 previously introduced only “a cleaning agent”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by JUNG et al. (US 2015/0053276 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, JUNG discloses an in-line internal plumbing line sanitizer (i.e., a cleaning flow path) for appliances, including drinking water dispensers (p0007) to address the problem of contaminated and dirty water lines (p0005). As shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced and annotated below), the sanitizer 1 comprises a cartridge with proximal end 3 adjacent first end 6, distal end 4 adjacent second end 7, and a rigid hull 5 (i.e., a case) (p0015). The rigid hull 5 encompasses a cylindrical void 10 within (i.e., a body portion having an accommodation space) (p0015). Within the interior of the apparatus 1 is a first sieve 24, which is a semi-permeable mesh having a plurality of perforations for allowing the passage of fluid therethrough (p0020); and a third sieve 30 of similar construction (i.e., an escape preventing unit) (p0025). The apparatus 1 further includes a sanitizing agent holding chamber 27 near the proximal end 3 and a mixing chamber 28 near the distal end 4 (p0022, p0023). In the sanitizing agent holding chamber 27 is a sanitizing agent 29 comprising a plurality of crystals or beads (i.e., [a] cleaning agent accommodated in a dry state; [the] case configured to accommodate a cleaning agent therein; [the] escape preventing unit configured to prevent the cleaning agent… inside the case from escaping outside the case; p0024). As shown in FIG. 1, JUNG further discloses an in-flow end 11 near the proximal end 3 and an out-flow end 17 near the distal end 4 (p0015, p0016) for receipt of an inserted water line 21 and an appliance plumbing line 23, respectively (i.e., a water inlet passage providing a flow path for water to flow into the accommodation space, opening toward the outside of the case; a water outlet passage providing a flow path for the water accommodated in the accommodation space to flow out of the case, configured to be installed at [a] water purifier) (p0017, p0018). As further shown in FIG. 1, the in-flow end 11 and the out-flow end 17 both open in the same direction.
The elements “a water purifier”, “a first fastening hole of the water purifier”, “a raw water inlet port of a filter”, “a second fastening hole of the water purifier”, and “a purified water outlet port of the filter” are directed toward limitations not encompassed by the claimed “cleaning flow path”. The invention only requires that “a water inlet passage” and “a water outlet passage” of the “cleaning flow path” be configured to interact with the previously cited elements; as such, it is interpreted that such elements have no bearing on the patentability of the “cleaning flow path” itself.
[AltContent: textbox (Proximal end)][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)][AltContent: textbox (Rigid hull)][AltContent: textbox (First sieve)][AltContent: textbox (Second sieve)][AltContent: textbox (Third sieve)][AltContent: textbox (Sanitizing agent)][AltContent: textbox (Holding chamber)][AltContent: textbox (Mixing chamber (unlabeled))]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 1. JUNG further discloses first end 6 and second end 7 at the proximal end 3 and distal end 4, respectively (i.e., the water inlet passage includes a first water inlet passage end portion connected to the body portion to communicate with the accommodation space; the water outlet passage includes a first water outlet passage end portion connected to the body portion to communicate with the accommodation space). Further, as noted earlier, JUNG discloses first sieve 24 and third sieve 30 (i.e., the escape preventing unit includes a plurality of escape preventing members disposed at the first water inlet passage end portion and the first water outlet passage end portion).
Regarding Claim 3, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 1. JUNG further shows in FIG. 2 that the interior cylindrical void 10 is divided into a sanitizing agent holding chamber 27 nearer the proximal end 3 (i.e., a first body portion; p0022) and a mixing chamber 28 end nearer the distal end 4 (i.e., a second body portion; p0023). A second sieve 26 divides the interior cylindrical void 10 between the holding chamber 27 and the mixing chamber 28 (i.e., [the] first body portion and [the] second body portion are separably coupled to each other; p0021); this second sieve 26 defines the ends of each chamber and inherently define the claimed engagement portion and fixture (i.e., an engagement portion is formed in the first body portion; a fixture, which engages the engagement portion when the first body portion and the second body portion are coupled, is formed on the second body portion; p0021).
Regarding Claim 5, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 1. As noted earlier, the first sieve 24 and third sieve 30 are semi-permeable meshes having a plurality of perforations for allowing the passage of fluid therethrough (i.e., the escape preventing unit has a mesh structure; p0020, p0025).
The limitation “to prevent the solid cleaning agent from escaping while allowing the water to flow” is directed toward an intended use of the claimed escape preventing unit. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 6, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 1. JUNG further discloses that water line 21 and plumbing line 23 of an appliance are designed to be inserted into the respective in-flow end 11 and out-flow end 17 of the in-line sanitizer, the claimed limitation “wherein the water inlet passage and the water outlet passage have a separation distance equal to a separation distance between the first fastening hole and the second fastening hole” is necessarily met. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II).
Even further, because the claimed invention is not directed toward the claimed “fastening holes” of a water purifier and further the “separation distance” between first and second fastening holes, such a measure whereby the claimed separation distance between the water inlet passage and the water outlet passage of the cleaning flow path is the same as that between the first and second fastening holes will always be anticipated by any prior art disclosed cleaning flow path.
Regarding Claim 7, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 1. The instant limitation requiring that “the cleaning flow path has a size to be accommodate in a filter insertion port of the water purifier” is broad and can be reasonably interpreted to require only that the claimed “size” references, e.g., the water inlet passage diameter. As such, because JUNG discloses an in-flow end 11 and a water line 21 from an appliance capably inserted into the in-flow end 11, the prior art inherently anticipates this instant limitation. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II).
Furthermore, the element “a filter insertion port” is directed toward a limitation not encompassed by the claimed “cleaning flow path”. Such an element is a part of the water purifier, which is not considered part of the cleaning flow path. As such, this element has no bearing on the patentability of the “cleaning flow path” itself.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG et al. (US 2015/0053276 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, JUNG anticipates the cleaning flow path of Claim 3. JUNG further discloses that a second circular perimeter 25b is affixed to the second sieve 26 and forms a tight seam with the rigid hull 5 (i.e., the cleaning flow path further includes a sealing member configured to seal between the first body portion and the second body portion in the width direction when the first body portion and the second body portion are coupled). JUNG is deficient in disclosing the first body portion has a greater width than that of the second body portion in a width direction of the case or that the cleaning flow path further includes a sealing member.
However, such a limitation is considered a mere matter of geometric or design choice. Whether the first body portion and the second body portion have different widths or the same width would not significantly alter or change the function or intended use of the claimed cleaning flow path. So long as fluid is able to transit from the in-flow end to the out-flow end and pass through a cleaning agent as claimed and as expressly taught by JUNG, the width of the flow path whether constant or varying has no impact on the function of such an apparatus. The configuration of the claimed invention is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (US 2019/0308892 A1) in view of JUNG et al. (US 2015/0053276 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, YU discloses a drinking-water supply device for supplying purified water (i.e., a water purifier assembly comprising a water purifier; p0047). The device includes filters 320 and 322 in a cabinet 10 for purifying water discharged through the device (p0057) and further includes a case 400 detachable from the cabinet 10 (p0081) for providing an electrolysis module 420 (i.e., a case configured to accommodate a cleaning agent therein; p0084) for sterilizing the flow path of water through the device (i.e., a cleaning flow path configured to clean the water purifier and detachably installed in the water purifier; p0087, p0008). YU discloses a number of extraction or discharge valves for purified water (p0095-0097) all connected to the filters via divergence pipe 241 (i.e., a purified water outlet port connected to [a] second fastening hole; p0093).
In a cleaning process, YU discloses the filters 320 and 322 are detached and the case 400 is attached such that influent raw water passes through the case (p0119; p0123; FIG. 7), through the electrolysis module 420 and subsequently to guide pipe 440 for sterilizing all paths where water moves in the cabinet 10 (p0129; p0131). As further shown in schematic FIG. 7, the case 400 includes a water inlet passage providing a flow path for water and that opens toward the outside of the case and being configured to be installed at the water purifier by being connected to the first fastening hole; additionally, FIG. 7 also shows the case includes a water outlet passage providing a flow path for the water to flow out of the case and being configured to be installed at the water purifier by being connected to the second fastening hole and even further opening in the same direction as the water inlet passage.
[AltContent: textbox (Divergence pipe)][AltContent: textbox (Electrolysis module)][AltContent: textbox (Guide pipe)][AltContent: textbox (Cabinet)][AltContent: textbox (Case)]
PNG
media_image2.png
194
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although YU is deficient in explicitly disclosing a raw water inlet port connected to a first fastening hole, YU teaches externally supplied water is filtered through first and second filters through connection pipe 330 (p0059, p0060); this inherently implies a raw water inlet port. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II).
YU is deficient in disclosing the case is configured to accommodate a cleaning agent therein and an escape preventing unit configured to prevent the cleaning agent accommodated in a dry state inside the case from escaping outside the case, and wherein the case includes a body portion having an accommodation space formed to accommodate the cleaning agent therein.
JUNG discloses an in-line internal plumbing line sanitizer (i.e., a cleaning flow path) for appliances, including drinking water dispensers (p0007) to address the problem of contaminated and dirty water lines (p0005). As shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced and annotated earlier in the rejection of Claim 1), the sanitizer 1 comprises a cartridge with proximal end 3 adjacent first end 6, distal end 4 adjacent second end 7, and a rigid hull 5 (i.e., a case) (p0015). The rigid hull 5 encompasses a cylindrical void 10 within (i.e., a body portion having an accommodation space) (p0015). Within the interior of the apparatus 1 is a first sieve 24, which is a semi-permeable mesh having a plurality of perforations for allowing the passage of fluid therethrough (p0020); and a third sieve 30 of similar construction (i.e., an escape preventing unit) (p0025). The apparatus 1 further includes a sanitizing agent holding chamber 27 near the proximal end 3 and a mixing chamber 28 near the distal end 4 (p0022, p0023). In the sanitizing agent holding chamber 27 is a sanitizing agent 29 comprising a plurality of crystals or beads (i.e., [a] cleaning agent accommodated in a dry state; [the] case configured to accommodate a cleaning agent therein; [the] escape preventing unit configured to prevent the cleaning agent… inside the case from escaping outside the case; p0024). Advantageously, such a in-line sanitizer increases the safety and efficiency of internal plumbing line sanitation procedures and eliminates the need for expensive replacement of internal appliance plumbing lines (p0007). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an in-line sanitizer as disclosed by JUNG as encompassing the claimed case for the for the cleaning flow path disclosed by YU. Even further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the case of JUNG for the case of YU because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 B), i.e., a sanitized purified water dispenser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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 at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights