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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 10, within line 8, the limitation “turnover” should likely be recited as “turned over”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0079658), hereinafter “Weber”.
With respect to claim 1, Weber teaches a portable water treatment system (“water purification bottle”) (see Paragraphs [0046, 0048]; Figs. 1, 11, and 12) comprising treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”) and untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”) (Paragraphs [0048, 0051]; Figs. 1, 11, and 12), wherein filter assembly 112 (“a filter unit”) is detachably arranged via filter assembly threads 130 (see Paragraphs [0018, 0021, 0109]; Fig. 1) at a bottom end 124 of treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”) (see Figs. 1, 14; Paragraphs [0050, 0109-0111]); a periphery of treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”) is actively matched with an inner perimeter of untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”) (see Figs. 14-16; Paragraphs [0036-0038]); when untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”) is filled with water comprising contaminants which includes sediment, bacteria, viruses, and protozoan cysts (“a mixture of liquid and solid”), wherein only water (“the liquid of the mixture”) runs through the filter unit assembly 112, and then flows into treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”) (see Paragraphs [0020, 0046, 0048-0050, 0109-0111]); Figs. 1 and 13-15).
With respect to claim 2, Weber teaches that the filter assembly unit 112 comprises a barrel structure (see Figs. 1, 13-15: wherein the filter assembly 112 screws onto end 124 of treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”)) and a filter component arranged inside the barrel structure, the barrel structure of filter assembly unit 112 comprising a proximal end (bottom of filter assembly 112 by reference number 142 in Fig. 14) and a distal end (towards filter outlet 140 in Fig. 14); an outer wall of the proximal end is embedded with a wiping seal interface 170 (“first sealing ring”) (Paragraph [0112]; Figs. 14-16); an outer wall of the distal end is embedded with O-ring gasket 162 (“second sealing ring”) (Paragraph [0109]; Figs. 14-16); an outer diameter of the distal end is smaller than the outer diameter of the proximal end (see Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 9, Weber teaches cap assembly 118 (“bottle cap component”) (Paragraphs [0049, 0052, 0083]) and top gasket 116 (“a sealing gasket”) (Paragraph [0083]; Fig.1); the cap assembly 118 (“bottle cap component”) is arranged on first end opening 122 (“a top end”) of treated water reservoir 114 (“the inner bottle body”); top gasket 116 (“a sealing gasket”) is sleeved around the periphery of treated water reservoir 114 (“the inner bottle body”); wherein when treated water reservoir 114 (“the inner bottle body”) is inserted into untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”), the top gasket 116 (“a sealing gasket”) is located between the cap assembly 118 (“bottle cap component”) and first end opening 122 (“a top end”) of treated water reservoir 114 (“the inner bottle body”) (Paragraph [0083]; Fig. 1).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0079658) in view of Marszalec et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2005/0087260), hereinafter “Weber” and “Marszalec”.
With respect to claim 3, Weber teaches that an outer wall of the distal end (towards filter outlet 140) comprises threads 130 which cooperate with internal threads 136 of the bottom end of the inner bottle body to provide a detachable connection, wherein bottom end 124 of treated water reservoir 114 with cavity 121 (“an inner bottle body”) is provided with threads that make up a groove (Paragraphs [0052]; Figs. 14-16).
Weber does not specifically teach that the distal end is provided with at least two block pieces.
Marszalec teaches 4 counter-rotation pins 210 (“at least two block pieces”) that sit inside grooves (Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the counter-rotation pins of Marszalec to the distal end of the barrel structure/filter assembly 112 of Weber in order to prevent undesirable backwards movement along the threads (Paragraph [0087]), which would provide the advantage of preventing the distal end of the filter assembly 112 from being separated during filtration.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0079658) in view of CN 113880324 A (machine translation provided and relied upon) and Weitz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2024/0262714), hereinafter “Weber”, “CN (‘324)”, and “Weitz”.
With respect to claim 4, Weber teaches that the filter component comprises a primary filter component embodied as a screen 132 (see Fig. 1) and filter media 144 (“a secondary filter component”) comprising activated carbon, wherein the screen (“primary filter component”) is located on the proximal end between untreated water inlets 142 and filter media 144 (“secondary filter component”) (Figs. 1 and 14-16; Paragraphs [0109-0111]). Weber teaches that screen 132 is spaced apart (considered to be consistent with “arranged at intervals”) from filter media 144 via inlets 142 (see Figs. 1, 14; Paragraph [0110]), forming a filter cavity inside filter assembly unit 112/the barrel structure.
Weber does not specifically teach wherein filter media 144 (“secondary filter component”) is located at the distal end, although the filter media is downstream of the screen/primary filter component as described above.
CN (‘324) teaches filtering layers comprising ultrafiltration (UF) filtration layer 10, PP cotton layer 11, active carbon layer 12, antibacterial ball 13, and PP cotton layer 15, while Weitz teaches activated carbon fiber media (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the layers of CN (‘324) and the activated carbon fiber media of Weitz to Weber such that UF filtration layer 10, PP cotton layer 11, and antibacterial ball layer 13 to the distal region of filter assembly 112 on top of (now primary filter component) carbon media 144, or in the proximate end of filter assembly 112 such that the UF/cotton/antibacterial ball layer comprises a primary filtration component and carbon media 144 is a secondary filter component because Weber teaches that the filter assembly can comprise one or more media and that the media removes contaminants including bacteria, and because CN (‘324) teaches that the UF/cotton/antibacterial media provides the advantages of filtration of macromolecules and organic pollutants and purification of water, while also being easy to clean, addition of activated carbon fiber media of Weitz would provide the advantage of low pressure drop through the media along with rapid and high adsorption levels of chemicals, organic and inorganic matter, and heavy metals (see Paragraphs [0053, 0054]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” arrangement of the carbon fiber layer of Weitz in between the UF layer and cotton layer of CN (‘324), as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to claim 7, Weber in view of CN (‘324) and Weitz teaches that a proximal strainer is arranged at the proximal end of the barrel structure of the filter assembly 112 (see Paragraph [0109-0111]; Fig. 1), primary and secondary filter components arranged north/distally of the proximate strainer (UF filter layer, carbon fiber layer, PP cotton layer, carbon media 144: see above rejection of claims 4-6), an annular grove at the distal end (screw threads 136 of Weber), an annual groove at the proximate end (screw threads 130. Additionally, Weitz teaches that a plurality of support layers can be arranged on either side of active layers of media (Paragraph [0016]), wherein a top support layer for active media layers is interpreted to meet the limitation “distal strainer” (see Paragraph [0058] for “mesh-like material”, for example), and wherein Weitz teaches threaded couplings for filter unit layers (Paragraph [0086]) and a ring extending away from a base with concentric ridges which helps to align the filter element (Paragraphs [0050, 0051]), meeting the limitations pertaining to annular ridges and protrusions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0079658) in view of Weitz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2024/0262714) and Niskin et al. (U.S. Patent # 4037477), hereinafter “Weber”, “Weitz”, and “Niskin”.
With respect to claim 8, Weber does not specifically teach at least one vent hole arranged at the bottom end of untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”).
Weitz teaches inlets 724 located at the bottom of an outer bottle body (Paragraph [0074]; Fig. 9), while Niskin teaches a valve stem 22 on a lower part of a bottle 11 (Column 3, lines 39-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the ventholes 724 to the untreated water reservoir 110 with cavity 120 (“an outer bottle body”) of Weber because Weitz teaches that inlets 724 may provide water with passage from outside filter unit 700 and with water pressure or suction applied to a straw, further to the interior of housing 720, providing flexibility and accessibility of water to the filter (Paragraphs [0074, 0080]). It would have been obvious to add the valve stem 22 of Niskin in order to provide the advantage of controlling flow of water into the bottle (see Column 3, lines 39-50 of Niskin).
Regarding the limitations “the venthole and the valve stem work together as a one-way valve; outside air flows into the outer bottle body through the venthole”, it is submitted that these intended use limitations are not assigned patentable weight. Inlets 724/valve stem of the Weber/Weitz/Niskin combination are capable of acting as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0079658) in view of Alexander et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0042373), hereinafter “Weber” and “Alexander”.
With respect to claim 10, Weber teaches wherein the cap assembly 118 (“bottle cap component”) comprises spout cap body 301 (“a bottle cap body”) and a flip-up lid 317; spout cap body 301 (“a bottle cap body”) is provided with spout 344 (“a drinking mouth”) in communication with the treated water reservoir 114 (“the inner bottle body”); the flip-up lid 317 is hinged to the spout cap body 301 (“a bottle cap body”); the flip-up 317 lid is rotatable on a hinge relative to the spout cap body 301 (“a bottle cap body”) to close or open spout 344 (“the drinking mouth”) (Paragraph [0095]; Figs. 1, 8);
Weber does not specifically teach a magnetic piece is embedded inside the bottle body cap; the flip-up lid is attached to the bottle cap body due to an ferromagnetic attraction force when the flip-up lid is turned to a closed position, although Weber does teach that a magnetic is embedded in the flip-up lid 317 to interact with a magnetic sensor to determine the position of the lid relative to the spout (see Paragraphs [0065, 0075, 0080, 0106]).
Alexander teaches magnet 2614 in a lid and magnet 2612 in a cap (see Fig. 47; Paragraph [0416]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to add the lid and cap magnets of Alexander to the bottle of Weber because Weber already teaches a magnet in the flip-up lid (see Paragraphs [0065, 0075, 0080, 0106]), and because Alexander teaches that the magnets provide the advantage of securing the cover of a water bottle in the closed position, while covering the drinking spout (see Paragraph [0416]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 04 December 2025