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 Interpretation
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite a liquid filtration system. In each of claims 1 and 13 the filter subsystem is recited as being “capable of attachment to a container opening of a container”. Thus, claims 1 and 13 are interpreted as not including the container as the container is recited as an intended use of the claimed invention. Similarly, claim 28 is directed to a filtration system comprising a threaded attachment mechanism configured to secure attachment of a filter subsystem to a container. The filter subsystem and container are interpreted as an intended use for the threaded attachment mechanism.
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.
Claims 13-17, 20 and 28 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 13 recites a filter subsystem capable of attachment to threads at a container opening. Thus, it is clear the container is not being positively recited as part of the system. However, lines 8-9 recite the filter media, when installed, resides at the container opening. It is unclear if the limitation of the filter media being installed is required by the claim. Such a limitation requires the container to be present in order for the filter media to be located as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear if the container is part of the claimed invention or not. For examination purposes, the container is assumed to not be part of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites a liquid filtration system comprising a threaded attachment mechanism “capable of direct engagement to threads at a threaded opening of a container holding a liquid containing microplastic particulates”. It does not appear that the container holding a liquid containing microplastic particulates is being positively recited as part of the filtration system. It is unclear if this element is meant to be positively recited as part of the claimed invention or if it recited as an intended use of the claimed invention. Also, lines 5-12 recite the filter media, when installed, is positioned in at least one of a neck of the container opening or into a body of the container. It is unclear if the limitation of the filter media being installed is required by the claim. Such a limitation requires the container to be present in order for the filter media to be located as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear if the container is part of the claimed invention or not. For examination purposes, any limitations in the claim directed to the container or the orientation of the filter subsystem to the container do not provide any further structural limitations to the claimed system.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from one of the above claims.
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nohren US 6,193,886.
Claim 13, Nohren teaches a filtration system comprising: a filter subsystem (10) capable of attachment to a container opening of a container and configured to receive water through a filter media (14, 29) of the filter subsystem, and an attachment mechanism (18) comprising the filter subsystem and only one instance of threads (22) dedicated to and capable of direct engagement of the filter subsystem to the threads at the container opening wherein, when installed, the filter media is configured to reside at the container opening, the attachment mechanism further comprises an internal opening and an external opening distal to the internal opening, the internal opening enables access by the filter media of the filter subsystem to fluid in the container, the filter media configured and installed to filter fluid, the external opening enable external access to filtered fluid passed through the filter subsystem (fig. 1, abstract).
Claims 14-17, Nohren further teaches the filter media is configured to filter micro-plastic particulates from the fluid as the fluid is pushed or drawn through the filter subsystem (fig. 1, abstract); the filter media is a carbon cylindrical filter (29) configured to filter micro-particulates (fig. 1, abstract, col. 6, lines 22-44); the attachment mechanism is compatible with container threads of a container and is configured to secure directly over a container opening via the container threads (fig. 1); and the filter media is of a filter cartridge configured to extend into a container opening in a neck portion of the container (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miga US 2009/0145839.
Claim 1, Miga teaches a filtration system comprising: a filter subsystem (22) capable of direct attachment to a container opening of a container, and when installed, the filter subsystem further comprises a filter media (47) configured to receive a liquid therethrough, and an attachment mechanism having threads (28) configured for direct engagement to compatible container threads and when installed the threads enable attachment of the filter subsystem in direct insertion alignment to a container opening and when installed a portion of the filter media is capable of extending into the container opening while a different portion of the filter media resides outside the container opening, the attachment mechanism further comprises the filter subsystem having an internal opening, and an external opening distal from the internal opening, the internal opening enable access of the filter media to a liquid within the container, the external opening enables external access of the filter subsystem to filter liquid passed through the filter subsystem (fig. 3, par 38).
Claims 10 and 12, Miga further teaches an inner cover (23) installed over the external opening (fig. 3); and the attachment mechanism and filter subsystem are polymers and therefore considered recyclable and are either replaceable or disposable (fig. 3, par 35).
Claim(s) 28 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being ancipated by Hull et al. US 2011/0278206.
Claim 28, Hull teaches a filtration system comprising: a threaded attachment mechanism (50) comprising a filter subsystem (156), the threaded attachment mechanism further having only one set of threads (55) dedicated to and capable of direct engagement to threads at a threaded opening of a container, and when installed, the filter subsystem comprises a filter cartridge having a top end cap (168) and a bottom endcap (162), the top endcap and bottom end cap configured to support a filter media (158) having a central conduit therebetween to pass liquid, the threaded attachment mechanism further configured to receive the bottom end cap thereinto, in that the filter subsystem is inserted into the threaded attachment mechanism, and into the container opening, and further configured to receive the top end cap in abutment and proximate the container opening, where the abutment results in the filter media capable of being positioned in a neck of the container (fig. 1-28). The recitation of the container holding a liquid containing microplastic particulates is a recitation of an intended use of the system and does not provide any further structural limitations to the system.
Claim 20, Hull further teaches the attachment mechanism is compatible with threads of a threaded opening manufactured into a container and the attachment mechanism is configured to secure the filter subsystem over the container opening to filter water within the container (fig. 1-28). The recitation of the container being plastic does not provide any further structural limitations to the system but Hull does teach a plastic container (par 106).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miga US 2009/0145839.
Claim 2, Miga teaches the system of claim 1 and filters (47, 48, 49) which will capture particulates but does not teach the size of particulates the filter is configured to filter. The recitation of the filter being configured to capture micro-particulates is a recitation of a size of the pores of the filter material, which is a well-established result effective variable of a filter material to achieve the desired filtering effect. The recitation of the size of particles is merely an optimization of the pore size to achieve the desired filtering effect of the fluid to be filtered. [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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 3, Miga further teaches the filter media is a carbon filter media (47) but does not teach the media being cylindrical or the size of particulates the filter is configured to filter. The recitation of the media being cylindrical is a recitation of the shaped of the media. The configuration of the apparatus is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). The recitation of the filter being configured to capture micro-particulates is a recitation of a size of the pores of the filter material, which is a well-established result effective variable of a filter material to achieve the desired filtering effect. The recitation of the size of particles is merely an optimization of the pore size to achieve the desired filtering effect of the fluid to be filtered. [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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nohren teaches multiple threaded instances to get the filter attached to the Nohren container, the top (31) threaded to the container threads and threads (33) of the filter housing into the top (31). Nohren does not teach any other threads that connect the filter housing to the top but rather seals (28). Even if the filter housing were attached to the top by threads, Nohren would still meet the claim limitations because there are only one instance of threads (21) dedicated to and capable of direct engagement to the threads of the container (fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights