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 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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bottle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US Patent 6,422,623).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas shows a pool maintenance tool comprising: a body having a spine (24) with a circumference (Fig.4), a first (upper) end (see annotated figure below; the first end is also an upper end), and a second (lower) end (near 28, the second end is also a lower end); a cradle (30) coupled to the first (upper end); and a hook (28) coupled to the second (lower) end (Fig.4); wherein the cradle and the hook are disposed about 180 on the spine circumference from the hook (both are located on opposite sides of the spine, Fig.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas shows the pool maintenance tool of claim 1, wherein the cradle is formed from two convex-curved members (30) configured to engage and at least partially encircle a bottle (the members are able to hold a bottle; Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 3, Thomas shows the pool maintenance tool of claim 1, further comprising a handle (21,22) coupled to the first (upper) end of the spine (Fig.3 & 4).
Claims 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capps (US Patent Publication 2020/0240164).
Regarding Claim 6, Capps shows a method of using a pool maintenance tool with steps comprising: obtaining a bottle (42) configured for a pool maintenance tool (10); inserting the bottle into a cradle (16) of the pool maintenance tool; submerging the cradle containing the bottle into a pool (Fig.5; paragraph 21 lines 5-10); collecting a water sample (paragraph 21 lines 6-9); retrieving the cradle containing the bottle from the pool (paragraph 21 lines 9-10); and removing the bottle containing the water sample from the cradle (paragraph 21 lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 7, Capps shows the method of claim 6, further comprising a step telescoping a handle (14) to any adjustable length and then locking the handle at this length (through the shank (32) and fasteners (30); paragraph 20 lines 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Patent 6,422,623) in view of Kisner (US Patent 5,709,793).
Thomas shows the pool maintenance tool of claim 1, but fails to show an attachment feature. Kisner teaches an attachment feature (38) disposed at the first (upper) end (35) of the spine (30) configured to removably couple with a receiver (50) on a handle (47) (column 7 lines 10-19). Wherein the attachment feature and the receiver comprise complementary threads (column 7 lines 10-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a threaded attachment feature in order to allow the device to be collapsed.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capps (US Patent Publication 2020/0240164).
Regarding Claim 8, Capps shows the method of claim 6, but fails to shows wherein the collecting step is performed at a depth of greater than about three (3) feet.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shows the collecting step is performed at a depth of greater than about three (3) feet because Applicant has not disclosed that collecting at a depth of three feet or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Capps’ collection depth and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the collection depth taught by Capps or the claimed collection depth because both collect water are equally capable of determining the chemicals in the pool.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Capps to obtain the invention as specified in the claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Capps.
Regarding Claim 9, Capps shows the method of claim 6, but fails to show wherein the collecting step is performed at a depth of greater than about seven (7) feet.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shows the collecting step is performed at a depth of greater than about seven (7) feet because Applicant has not disclosed that collecting at a depth of seven feet or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Capps’ collection depth and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the collection depth taught by Capps or the claimed collection depth because both collect water are equally capable of determining the chemicals in the pool.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Capps to obtain the invention as specified in the claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Capps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kisner (US Patent 6,033,560) is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a handle (40) having a cradle (90) that is enclosed around a bottle (60).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/LAUREN A CRANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754