DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wery et al. (US5607087. Wery hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Wery discloses a hydration system (Figs. 1-16, comprising:
a tube (20) comprising a first end (at 34) and a second end (at 42), the first end comprising a liquid reservoir coupler (24 and 36) and the second end comprising a bite valve (42),
the liquid reservoir coupler configured to (capable of) couple to and seal a liquid reservoir (32);
the liquid reservoir coupler further comprising a channel (of 24 and 36) therethrough to (capable of) allow liquid to pass through the channel when under suction;
a check valve (48 and “a check valve located within 34.” Col. 7, line 9) interposed between the bite valve and the liquid reservoir coupler to (capable of) prevent backflow into the liquid reservoir;
wherein the bite valve and check valve are:
i. absent actuation by a user, both in a closed position (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention), and
ii. independently actuatable by:
a. a user biting the bite valve to thereby open the bite valve (Col. 8, lines 51-63), and
b. applying suction (apply neutral or negative pressure at 42. Fluid will not flow to valve 42 is positive pressure (user blowing into 42) is applied at 42) to the tube to thereby actuate and open the check valve;
wherein when a user bites to open the bite valve and suction is applied to the tube, the check valve allows liquid to pass from the liquid reservoir to the user; and
as liquid passes from the liquid reservoir, a volume (the immediate volume) of the liquid reservoir decreases from a first volume to a second volume, the second volume less than the first; and
wherein when suction is stopped, the check valve closes due to vacuum pressure in the liquid reservoir which thereby prevents liquid from passing back through the tube into the liquid reservoir, the bite valve actuatable to prevent backflow from the user's mouth to the tube.
With respect to claim 2, Wery discloses the hydration system of claim 1, wherein the liquid reservoir coupler comprises a quick-connect coupler (Fig. 8-13 and Col. 8, lines 29-49).
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.
Claim(s)3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wery in view of Wilson (US5265769).
With respect to claim 3, Wery discloses the hydration system of claim 1 except for wherein the liquid reservoir coupler comprises a first coupling site, a second coupling site, and a third coupling site, wherein the tube is coupled to the first coupling site, a secondary tube is coupled to the second coupling site, and a tertiary tube is coupled to the third coupling site, wherein the secondary tube is coupled to the liquid reservoir and the tertiary tube is coupled to a second liquid reservoir.
However, Wilson teaches a hydration system (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a tube (76) comprising a first end (at 72) and a second end (at 82), the first end comprising a liquid reservoir coupler (72) and the second end comprising an attaching device (not shown), the liquid reservoir coupler configured to (capable of) couple to and seal a liquid reservoir (66); wherein the liquid reservoir coupler comprises a first coupling site (at 74), a second coupling site (70), and a third coupling site (68), wherein the tube is coupled to the first coupling site, a secondary tube (in 66) is coupled to the second coupling site, and a tertiary tube (in 64) is coupled to the third coupling site, wherein the secondary tube is coupled to the liquid reservoir and the tertiary tube is coupled to a second liquid reservoir (64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a liquid reservoir coupler with three coupling sites, as taught by Wilson, to Wery’s hydration system, in order to provide additional liquid reservoir (Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a hydration system: Lowe, Glusker et al., Rowe, Cooper et al., Tsay, Le, Coleman, Shumick et al., Solomon ‘364, Solomon ‘719and Lynd et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights