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 .
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, 1) a skimmer, 2) the receiving void, , 4) the one or more flotation devices include a plurality of flotation support members 5) upper lip with at least one spring loaded latch, 6) a latching member configured to pop out into the one or more flotation devices when the one or more flotation devices are aligned with the at least one spring loaded latches, 7) a fastening notch configured to depress the flexible latch during attachment and secure the flexible latch in a neutral position to hold the flexible latch in place, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that the as-originally filed specification and figures illustrate “a pool cleaning device” (see as-originally filed specification paragraph 0010-0014, 0035, 0037 and figures 1-5). The as-originally filed specification and figures illustrate a pool cleaning device and not a skimmer, although the pool cleaning device comprises the components of the claimed skimmer.
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 § 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 28-47 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.
Claim 28 recites “a pump” and “the centrifugal pump”. Claim 28 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the centrifugal pump is a new element or further defining the pump element.
Claims 29-47 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 34, which is dependent upon independent claim 28, recites “the receiving void”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 34 is understood to be dependent upon claim 33, which recites “a receiving void”.
Claim 34 is deemed indefinite. Claim 31 recites “the receiving void is separate from an interior of the one or more flotation devices”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “receiving void” is understood to be an empty space that may be occupied when attached or an open space when detached (see rejection of claim 33 below). It is unclear how a “receiving void”, which is understood as a space that may or may not be occupied is “separate from an interior” of said device.
Claim 38 recites “at least one spring loaded latches”. Claim 38 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how there is a plurality of latches when there is a singular latch, i.e. one spring loaded latch. This claim language is deemed indefinite due to the inconsistency of singular and plural format.
Claim 39, which is dependent upon independent claim 28, recites “the at least one spring loaded latches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 39 is understood to be dependent upon claim 38, which recites “at least one spring loaded latches”.
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 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.
Claims 28-34, 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080217229 A1 (hereinafter 229) in view of Malcom Thompson Pumps “3 Benefits of Using Centrifugal Pumps to Pump Chemicals and Liquids (https://www.mtp.com.au/news/3-benefits-using-centrifugal-pumps/) (posted on April 19, 2017; site captured on March 7, 2019) (hereinafter Malcom).
Regarding claim 28, US 229 discloses a vacuum skimmer for swimming pools (which is a skimmer) comprising a housing that has an opening for taking in water (which is deemed a housing including an upper housing and a lower housing), a dirt collecting container that collect coarse materials that is present in the upper portion of the housing (which is deemed a strainer contained in the upper housing), a pump having one or more suction intakes as well as a water outlet and is present in the lower portion of the housing (which is deemed a pump contained in the lower housing, the pump comprising a pump inlet and pump outlet), and one or more float bodies that may be removed from the skimmer for easier transportation and storage of the skimmer (which is deemed one or more floatation devices detachably attached to the housing) (see US 229 abstract, figures 1-3, claims 1, 7, 10-12, , and paragraphs [0005], [0013]-[0015], [0017]).
The claimed lower housing is defined in terms of the presence of another element of the claimed apparatus, i.e. the claimed centrifugal pump being contained in the claimed lower housing. Thus, the claimed lower housing is not defined in terms of a structural feature or dimensions of said lower housing. Hence, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed lower housing is understood to be a portion of an apparatus that contains a pump.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed pump limitation is understood to be a centrifugal pump. US 229 does not disclose centrifugal pump.
Malcom discloses that there are three benefits to using a centrifugal pump to pump liquids, such as water (see Malcom title). Malcom discloses that 1) “Centrifugal pumps work well with large volumes of liquid transfer”, 2 “Centrifugal pumps are typically simple in design” and 3) “Centrifugal pumps are comparatively compact” (see Malcom page 1).
Malcom is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water systems and/or moving fluid.
Malcom is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). Malcom is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. treatment of swimming pools and/or pool of fluid with a circulation and treatment system with a pump (see Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003] & [0034]).), because Malcom discloses the benefits of a specific type of pump to move fluid, such as water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the pump of US 229 to incorporate a centrifugal pump, as disclosed in Malcom, because it would assist with moving fluid, such as water in a swimming pool, and/or because it would assist the vacuum skimmer with filtering the water in the swimming pool.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the pump of US 229 to incorporate a centrifugal pump, as disclosed in Malcom, because 1) “Centrifugal pumps work well with large volumes of liquid transfer”, 2 “Centrifugal pumps are typically simple in design” and 3) “Centrifugal pumps are comparatively compact” (see Malcom page 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the pump of US 229 to incorporate a centrifugal pump, as disclosed in Malcom, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. move fluid, such as water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the pump of US 229 to incorporate a centrifugal pump, as disclosed in Malcom, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of moving water.
Hence, US 229 in view of Malcom is deemed to disclose skimmer, comprising a housing including an upper housing and a lower housing; a strainer contained in the upper housing; a pump contained in the lower housing, the pump comprising a pump inlet and a pump outlet, wherein the centrifugal pump provides a pressure to draw a liquid from the strainer and out through an outlet in the lower housing; and one or more floatation devices detachably attached to the housing.
Regarding claim 29, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the upper housing contains a filter positioned below the strainer (see rejection of claim 1; see US 229 paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 30, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the upper housing and the one or more flotation devices are configured for the upper housing to float at or below the water line (see rejection of claim 28).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 229 in view of Malcom is substantially identical to the claimed upper housing and the claimed one or more flotation devices of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 229 in view of Malcom is presumed inherently capable of having the upper housing to float at or below the water line.
Regarding claim 31, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the strainer is removable (see rejection of claim 28; see US 229 paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 32, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the one or more flotation devices are configured to be neutrally buoyant (see rejection of claim 28; see US 229 paragraph 0017).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 229 in view of Malcom is substantially identical to the claimed one or more flotation devices of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 229 in view of Malcom is presumed inherently capable of being neutrally buoyant.
In the alternative, if US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose a “the one or more flotation devices are configured to be neutrally buoyant”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 229 in view of Malcom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be neutrally buoyant because it would assist with removing debris at the surface of the water and/or because it would assist with removing debris from the surface of water even as water levels change.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be neutrally buoyant and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter/skim water.
Regarding claim 33, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the one or more flotation devices includes a receiving void configured to detach or attach the one or more flotation devices (see rejection of claim 28; see US 229 figure 3).
The term “receiving void” is not defined in the as-originally filed specification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “receiving void” is understood to be an empty space that may be occupied when attached or an open space when detached. Figure 3 of US 229 illustrates a recess and projection configuration of the float bodies and the housing, which would necessarily achieve a receiving void of the one or more flotation devices.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of , US 229 in view of Malcom is substantially identical to the claimed receiving void of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 229 in view of Malcom is presumed inherently capable of being detach or attach the one or more flotation devices.
Regarding claim 34, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the receiving void is separate from an interior of the one or more flotation devices (see rejection of claim 33; see US 229 figure 3).
As noted above, claim 34 is deemed indefinite. Claim 34 is herein understood as the receiving void being an external feature of the one or more flotation devices.
Regarding claim 44, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the upper housing is configured to detachably attach to the lower housing.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of US 229 in view of Malcom to have the upper housing and the lower housing be detachable from one another because it would assist with fixing and/or replacing the pump element or access the water return line in the lower housing (see MPEP 2144.04 V,C).
Regarding claim 45, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses fluid flows freely between the upper housing and the lower housing (see rejection of claim 28; see US 229 paragraph 0013 and figures 1 & 3).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of WO 2012021935 A1 (hereinafter WO 935).
Regarding claim 29, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the upper housing contains a filter positioned below the strainer.
WO 935 discloses a skimmer device comprising a housing having an opening wherein “Below the strainer basket 16 is a cartridge filter element 22 which is positioned such that the water must pass through the nitration medium in the form of the cartridge filter element 22 to a central chamber 34 of the cartridge filter element 22, before passing through outlets 36a-c…. the driving force for this water movement is a pump 50 positioned below the filter medium 22” (see WO 935 page 7 line 37 – page 8 line 2; see also WO 935 abstract and figures 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18).
WO 935 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. skimmer device and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a cartridge filter element in the upper housing positioned below the strainer, as disclosed in WO 935, into the device of US 229 in view of Malcom because it would assist with the treatment and/or purification of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a cartridge filter element in the upper housing positioned below the strainer, as disclosed in WO 935, into the device of US 229 in view of Malcom because it would assist with removal of impurities that passed through the strainer and/or because would assist with removal of impurities before the fluid enters the pump, thereby assist with the longevity of said pump.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a cartridge filter element in the upper housing positioned below the strainer, as disclosed in WO 935, into the device of US 229 in view of Malcom and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. treatment and/or purification of fluid, such as water.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 5133854 A (hereinafter US 854).
Regarding claim 35, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the one or more flotation devices are made of a hard or soft plastic material.
US 854 discloses a floating skimmer apparatus comprising balancing floats/buoyant member to keep the apparatus at the water level, a flexible pliable filter in the upper portion of the housing, a centrifugal pump in the lower portion of the housing, wherein fluid, such as water, enters the apparatus, travels through the flexible pliable filter, down the chamber and/or post towards the pump, enters the pump and then filtered water exits through an open (see US 854 abstract, figures 3 & 4 and col 1 line 53 – col 2 line 21; col 2 line 55 – col 3 line 24; col 3 line 52 – col 4 line 11). US 854 discloses the “spaced balancing floats 48 are swivelably mounted by screws 45 to the outside face of and project above the wall 44. Each float 48 includes a cup-shaped hollow cylinder 49 open at its bottom and closed at its top and securely housing in its upper portion a buoyant member 50 which may be formed of a foamed plastic or the like” (see US 854 col 4 lines 1-7).
US 854 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. skimmer device and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be made of foamed plastic, as disclosed in US 854, because US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the material for the flotation device(s) and US 854 discloses that flotation device(s) can be formed of foamed plastic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be made of foamed plastic, as disclosed in US 854, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. have a skimmer device float.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of https://danfender.com/c/products/mooring-buoys-hard-pe- (published on June 17, 2018) (hereinafter Dan Fender).
Regarding claim 35, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the one or more flotation devices are made of a hard or soft plastic material.
Dan Fender discloses hard PE mooring buoys that are formed from a PE (polyethylene) hard shell and filled with PUR foam and these buoys do not sink even if damaged (see Dan Fender page 1).
Dan Fender is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. floating device in a body of water.
Dan Fender is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” See MPEP 2141.01(a). Dan Fender is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. a skimmer/inflatable device for a swimming pool (see as-originally filed specification paragraphs 0002, 0004).), because Dan Fender is directed towards flotation devices in a body of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be made of PE (polyethylene) hard shell and filled with PUR foam, as disclosed in Dan Fender, because US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the material for the flotation device(s) and Dan Fender discloses that flotation device(s) can be formed of PE (polyethylene) hard shell and filled with PUR foam.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to be made of PE (polyethylene) hard shell and filled with PUR foam, as disclosed in Dan Fender, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. have a skimmer device float.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 5498348 A (hereinafter US 348).
Regarding claim 36, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the one or more flotation devices are configured to be fillable with air.
US 348 discloses a mobile floating surface skimmer for removing debris and/or contaminants from a body of water (see US 348 abstract and figure 1). US 348 discloses the skimmer comprises buoyancy means including three floats which are each positioned adjacent the corners of the inlet (see US 348 claims 1 & 5; col 2 lines 10-14 and figures 1-4). US 348 discloses the “floats 2 have a top and bottom surface which are parallel to the surface of the water and are much broader than they are deep. The floats 2 are preferably made from water proof foam or have an air pocket located therein” (see US 348 col 3 lines 20-25).
US 348 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. skimmer device and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to have an air pocket located within each of the flotation device, as disclosed in US 348, because US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose forming the flotation device(s) and US 348 discloses that flotation device(s) have an air pocket located within each of the flotation device of a skimmer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more flotation devices of US 229 in view of Malcom to have an air pocket located within each of the flotation device, as disclosed in US 348, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. have a skimmer device float.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of EP 3382126 A1 (hereinafter EP 126).
Regarding claim 37, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the one or more flotation devices include a plurality of flotation support members.
EP 126 discloses a pool cleaner comprising a first assembly and a second assembly (see EP 126 abstract and figures 1, 2, & 7). EP 126 discloses the device further comprises a floating component (EP 126 paragraphs 0031-0032, 0089, 0091, 0110-0112 and figure 7). EP 126 discloses “the floating component includes a floating portion and a connection rod, two ends of the connection rod are connected with the floating portion and the first housing respectively, and the floating portion is filled with a foam material” (see EP 126 paragraph 0032; see also EP 126 paragraphs 0110-0112 and figure 7).
EP 126 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. pool cleaning system and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom by incorporating the floating components, including the floating portions and a connection rods, as disclosed in EP 126, because it would assist with achieving a desired buoyancy.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom by substituting the floating bodies of US 229 in view of Malcom with the floating components, including the floating portions and a connection rods, as disclosed in EP 126, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of floating the device in water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom by incorporating the floating components, including the floating portions and a connection rods, as disclosed in EP 126, because the connecting rods would allow more water to interact with the housing, i.e. increase the surface area of the housing interacting with water to be filtered.
Claim 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of CN 109178251 A (hereinafter CN 251).
Regarding claim 38, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses that the one or more flotation devices are connected to the housing by being inserted into a recess of the housing (see US 229 claims 10-11). US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the flotation devices are inserted with projections into matching recesses of the housing and a locking connection is used to secure the connection (see US 229).
US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the housing comprises an upper lip with at least one spring loaded latches.
CN 251 discloses a lifebuoy system that connects individual buoys to form an array that allows for an improvement in rescue effectiveness and efficiency as well as increases the number of people that can be rescued (see CN paragraphs 0002, 0006). CN 251 discloses a latch/locking module or a latch/locking tongue module that allows “multiple lifebuoys can be combined with each other through the four-corner connection structure” (see CN 251 paragraph 0009) that enables rapid assembly and reliable connection (see CN 251 paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0034 & figures 4, 15-17 & 19). CN 251 discloses that the latch includes a fixed end and an insertion end and the latch module includes a latch seat, a latch member, and an unlocking component (see CN 251 paragraph 00015-0020). CN 251 discloses that the “unlocking component includes an unlocking button, a return spring, and a connecting spring. One end of the return spring is fixed to the side wall of the locking seat above the locking mechanism, and the other end is connected to the unlocking button. The length direction of the return spring is aligned with the bolt insertion direction. One end of the connecting spring is fixed to the unlocking button, and the other end is fixed to the locking mechanism. The connecting spring is used to rotate the locking mechanism upwards when the unlocking button presses the return spring in the bolt insertion direction, thereby releasing the lock” (see CN 251 paragraph 0018; see also CN 251 paragraphs 0023, 0084-0086 and figures 10, 11, 17).
CN 251 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. floating device in a body of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the locking connection between the one or more flotation devices and the housing of US 229 in view of Malcom by incorporating the latch/locking module or a latch/locking tongue module connection, as disclosed in CN 251, because US 229 in view of Malcom discloses a locking connection but does not disclose any structural elements to achieve the locking feature and CN 251 discloses a latch/locking system that can be used for floatation devices.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the locking connection between the one or more flotation devices and the housing of US 229 in view of Malcom by incorporating the latch/locking module or a latch/locking tongue module connection, as disclosed in CN 251, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. connecting flotation devices.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the locking connection between the one or more flotation devices and the housing of US 229 in view of Malcom by incorporating the latch/locking module or a latch/locking tongue module connection, as disclosed in CN 251, because it would assist with achieving rapid connection/disconnection between structural elements, i.e. flotation devices and housing, flexibility and sturdiness (see CN 251 paragraph 0034).
The term “upper lip” is not defined in the as-originally filed specification. Herein, upper lip is understood to be a portion or edge of the housing that at least one spring loaded latch may be formed upon. Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify housing of US 229 in view of Malcom to incorporate the latch/locking module or a latch/locking tongue module connection, as disclosed in CN 251, which would be formed at an upper portion or edge of the housing (see US 229 figure 3).
Regarding claim 39, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28 (or claim 39). Further, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses at least one spring loaded latches further include a latching member configured to pop out into the one or more flotation devices when the one or more flotation devices are aligned with the at least one spring loaded latches (see rejection of claim 38).
Regarding claim 40, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 39. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the at least one spring loaded latches is a flexible latch (see rejection of claim 38).
The as-originally filed specification does not define the term “flexible latch”. Herein, the spring of the spring loaded latch is understood to be a flexible latch since a spring is inherently flexible.
Regarding claim 41, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 40. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the flexible latch is received by a receiving void of the one or more flotation devices (see rejection of claim 38).
Regarding claim 42, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 40. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom and CN 251 discloses the receiving void further includes a fastening notch configured to depress the flexible latch during attachment and secure the flexible latch in a neutral position to hold the flexible latch in place (see rejection of claim 38; see CN 251 figure 17).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of RU 2681691 C1 (hereinafter RU 691).
Regarding claim 43, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the housing is coated with at least one of an anti-corrosion agent, a water resistant layer, or a sealant.
RU 691 discloses a mobile sectional pool (see RU 691 paragraphs 0001, 0008, 0010, 0012). RU 691 discloses components of the sectional pool secured to one another by using a sealant (see RU 691 paragraphs 0013, 0032).
RU 691 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. swimming pool.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of US 229 in view of Malcom to be coated in a sealant, as disclosed in RU 691, because it would assist with securing the components of the housing.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 20060104720 A1 (hereinafter US 720).
Regarding claim 43, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose the housing is coated with at least one of an anti-corrosion agent, a water resistant layer, or a sealant.
US 720 discloses a water skimmer (see US 720 abstract and paragraph 0007). US 720 discloses that swimming pool water is known to be corrosive (see US 720 paragraph 0017).
US 720 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. skimmer device and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom by coating the housing in an anti-corrosive agent, because US 720 discloses that swimming pools are known to be corrosive and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prolong the life of the housing by coating with an anti-corrosive agent.
Claim 46 & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 229 in view of Malcom as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 2018/0313049 A1 (hereinafter US 049).
Regarding claim 46 and regarding claim 47, US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 229 in view of Malcom does not disclose a prefilter placed on top of the strainer, as recited in claim 46, and does not disclose the prefilter is made of a porous material, as recited in claim 47.
US 049 discloses an in-pond water filtration maintenance system (see US 049 abstract, figures 1 & 11 and paragraph [0003]). US 049 discloses that the system comprises a “skimmer basin includes an upper opening configured to permit a flow of water and debris from a pond surface into the skimmer basin, a strainer basket positioned within the skimmer basin and configured to trap at least some debris that enters the skimmer basin through the upper opening, a skimmer pump positioned within the skimmer basin below the strainer basket, the skimmer pump configured to draw water through the strainer basket and to pump the water out of the skimmer basin” (see US 049 paragraph [0003]). US 049 discloses a collection pad that is contained within the strainer basket, which “may help to further collect debris, and may simplify a cleaning process by allowing a person to remove the collection pad 400 for disposal of debris” (see US 049 paragraph 0039; see also US 049 figure 4 and paragraph 0048).
US 049 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. skimmer device and/or filtration system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom to incorporate a collection pad, as disclosed in US 049, within the strainer basket, as disclosed in US 229 in view of Malcom, because it would assist with the collection/removal of debris and/or because it would assist with simplifying the cleaning process (see US 049 paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 229 in view of Malcom to incorporate a collection pad, as disclosed in US 049, as a coarse, fine and/or very fine filters, as disclosed in US 229 in view of Malcom, in the strainer basket, as disclosed in US 049, because US 229 in view of Malcom discloses the additional coarse, fine and/or very fine filters but does not disclose a location within the system and US 049 discloses that the collection pad within the strainer basket assist with purifying/treating a body of water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the strainer basket, as disclosed in US 229 in view of Malcom, with the collection pad/strainer basket, as disclosed in US 049, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of filtering a body of water.
The prefilter/collection pad of US 229 in view of Malcom and US 049 would necessarily be porous since it would allow for water to flow through the pad while preventing or trapping debris (see US 049 paragraph 0039).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights