DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Listing of Claims
The status of the claims are as follows:
Claims 1-61 and 71-78 are cancelled.
Claims 62-70 are pending.
Claims 62-70 and 79-88 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (First Paragraph)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 62 and 79, and dependents thereof, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 62 and 79:
Claims 62 and 79 recite “a chamber to connect with the water inlet and the water outlet”. This is new matter as there is no support found in the original disclosure.
“continued dissolution” is new matter.
Claim 70
Claim 70 now recites “an additional chamber”. This is not supported by the original disclosure, including the drawings. The drawings show and are described as containing one chamber. The disclosure describes the media as being embedded, which is interpreted as explained below to be at least mixed. This is how Claim 70 is interpreted.
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 62 and 79, and dependents thereof, 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.
Claims 62, 79, and 82: It is unclear what “continued dissolution” is and requires. There is no recitation of dissolution. Further, the claim is an apparatus claim and “continued dissolution” appears to relate to a process or method of use. It is unclear what is required to meet this limitation.
Claims 65 and 85: It is unclear how “left over water” can be a pH increaser; it is also unclear where this “left over water” is from. It is also unclear how the “a water bypass” is related to the invention; it has no claimed tangible connection.
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 62, 68, 79 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hughes (US Pub. No. 2004/0159605).
Claim 62, 68, 79, and 82: Hughes teaches a filter apparatus comprising a filter cartridge (11), a treatment section (17), a pH increaser of soluble calcium carbonate, a magnesium carbonate, or a combination [0052, “dolomite”; Claims 35 and 36 wherein dolomite is made of insoluble magnesium containing minerals recited in Claim 35 and Claim 36 recites additional adsorptive material including apatite], an agent to reduce precipitates in the form of apatite [0044, 0047], the cartridge includes an inlet [0026](Claim 50) and an outlet [0026](Claim 50).
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.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (JP 2006263718 A) and further in view of Hughes (US Pub. No. 2004/0159605).
Claims 62-69, 79, 80, 82, 83, and 85-87 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kitagawa et al. (JP 2006263718 A).
Claims 62, 66, 69, 79, 82, 85, and 86 : Regarding the limitation: A filter apparatus to treat water and to treat a solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates comprising, Kitagawa et al. (Kitagawa hereafter) teach a filter element water quality regulating device (filter apparatus to treat water) (see Abstract). A sequestering agent 33 is dissolved into the softened water having passed through the water softening ion exchange resin 18. A dispersing agent 45 disperses phosphoapatite on the surface of scale (thereafter treats an agent for reducing mineral precipitates) (see Abstract; page 4, lines 28-31, page 7, lines 3-10).
Regarding the limitation: (a) a filter cartridge having a water inlet and a water outlet, Kitagawa teaches a water quality adjustment device (filter cartridge 16) having an inlet opening 19 and an outlet opening 20 (see Figure 5).
Regarding the limitation: (b) a treatment section or chamber to connect to the water inlet, Kitagawa teaches a first chamber holding resin 18 disposed between the water inlet 22 and water outlet 20 (see page 3).
Regarding the limitation: (d) a pH increaser to increase a pH of the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates by producing a second medium from a fluid introduced from the bypass and/or the first medium to increase the pH of the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates wherein the pH increaser is a composition less acidic than the pH of the first medium to decrease the dissolution behavior of the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates and reduce solubility of the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates; Kitagawa teaches a raw water (pH increaser) bypass 32 which transports raw untreated water to 16g (second chamber) containing the solid agent (polyphosphate sequestrant - same material as taught by applicant’s specification at paragraphs 36 and 37) to reduce mineral precipitates. When the water mixes with the solid agent, the solid agent is embedded in the water which is the claimed “pH increaser”. The raw water to be treated contains calcium and magnesium (increases pH of the solid agent) (a composition less acidic than the pH of the softened water - first medium) (see Figure 5; page 4, paragraphs 6 and 7; page 5, paragraphs 1-4).
Regarding the limitation: and prevent continued dissolution of the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates, this is an intended outcome of what happens when the filter is used in a certain way. There is no positively claimed structure in this limitation. The claim is to a filter apparatus. The manner of use does not limit the structure of an apparatus. So as long as the apparatus has the same structure, the prior art meets the claim.
The following limitations are written an intended use limitations of the claimed filter structure: (1) to treat water; (2) to treat a solid agent; (3) to reduce mineral precipitates; (4) to decrease a pH; (5) to increase a pH; (6) to reduce the solubility; (7) to reduce precipitates. Intended use limitations do not further limit or provide patentable weight to the structure of the filter claims. However, as recited above, Kitagawa meets these claim limitations.
Kitagawa does not teach the a pH increaser selected from soluble calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, or a combination.
Hughes teaches a water treatment device comprising a mix of dolomite [0052, which is soluble calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate material]. The dolomite is mixed with an absorption media (abstract) [0044] wherein Hughes explicitly state that doing so is routine and choosing from any one of known minerals for said purpose is routine in the art and does not undergo any undue experimentation [0044].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to add dolomite to Kitagawa’s media for the benefit of providing an additional filter media intended to block passage of unwanted contaminants through the filer.
Claims 63 and 80: Regarding the limitation: wherein the solid agent is a phosphate, triphosphate or polyphosphate complexing agent, Kitagawa teaches inside the lower chamber 44, a metal ion sequestering agent 33 (sodium polyphosphate) which is granular or lump-like in the size in the initial state of use (see Abstract, pages 2 and 8).
Claims 64 and 81: Regarding the limitation: wherein the pH decreaser in the first chamber is a cation exchanger in the hydrogen form, Kitagawa teaches the ion exchange resin 18, either a Na-type cation exchange resin or an H-type (pH decreaser hydrogen form) weakly acidic cation exchange resin is used. When an H-type weakly acidic ion exchange resin is used, temporary hardness such as bicarbonate hardness that becomes a scale-causing substance can be removed (see Figure 5; page 3). The ion exchange resin 18 is one that generates softened water within the range of pH 4.0 to 6.9 is used (see page 3).
Claim 65: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 63 wherein the pH increaser in the second chamber is the fluid from the bypass, Kitagawa teaches raw water flows to the second chamber 16g of cartridge 16. Kitagawa teaches a cylindrical adjustment valve 61 is provided at the lower end portion of the lower case 16h at a position coaxial with the pipe portion 32. The adjustment valve 61 has a plurality of small holes 61a. The inside of the cartridge 16 is vertically divided by the filter 17, and the activated carbon layer 46 is filled on the lower side and the ion exchange resin 18 is filled on the upper side. Raw natural water (pH increaser) reaches directly in the pipe 21 (bypass water) through the adjustment valve 61, and the remainder reaches the lower case 16h via the small hole 61a and the water flow hole 16e. The sequestering agent 33 is eluted within 16 g (with water from bypass) (second chamber) and supplied to the external piping system. In addition, by adjusting the adjustment valve 61, the distribution ratio in the pipe 21 and the lower case 16h is adjusted (see Figure 5; pages 6-7).
Claim 67: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 63 further comprising a connection head and wherein the filter cartridge is interchangeable, Kitagawa teaches a water supply port 22 (connection head). One purpose of the invention is to maintain water softening efficiency and maintain water quality without the need to frequently replace (interchangeable) or regenerate the ion exchange resin, even when the ion exchange capacity of the ion exchange resin decreases (see Figures 1 and 5).
Claim 68: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 62 wherein the solid pH increaser reduces mineral precipitates, Kitagawa notes that the amount of elution of agent 33 is increased when the water softening ability of the ion exchange resin 18 (pH increaser) is reduced. On the contrary, when the ability of the ion exchange resin 18 does not decrease, the agent 33 has a property of not eluting so much (pH increaser treats the solid agent to reduce mineral precipitates). Therefore, when the ability of the ion exchange resin is reduced sequestering agent 33 can compensate for the reduction (see pages 5 and 6).
Claim 69: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 63 wherein the second chamber is connected to the bypass and to the water inlet, Kitagawa teaches the second chamber 16g is connected to the bypass to the water inlet 22 (see page 6).
Claims 83: Regarding the limitation: wherein the solid agent is a triphosphate or polyphosphate complexing agent, Kitagawa teaches inside the lower chamber 44, a metal ion sequestering agent 33 (sodium polyphosphate) which is granular or lump-like in the size in the initial state of use (see Abstract, pages 2 and 8).
Claim 87: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 63 further comprising a connection head and wherein the filter cartridge is interchangeable, Kitagawa teaches a water supply port 22 (connection head). One purpose of the invention is to maintain water softening efficiency and maintain water quality without the need to frequently replace (interchangeable) or regenerate the ion exchange resin, even when the ion exchange capacity of the ion exchange resin decreases (see Figures 1 and 5).
Claims 70, 81, 84, and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (JP 2006263718 A) and Hughes as applied to claims 62-69 above, and further in view of Roffman (U.S. Publication Number: 2006/0096925 A1).
Claim 70: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 63 wherein including an anion exchanger or a weakly basic anion exchanger, Kitagawa teaches a solubility decreaser is formed when fluid is introduced into the second chamber 44. Specifically, Kitagawa teaches a dispersing agent, tannin component or lignin component (solubility decreaser) is made to elute in the softened water and passes into the lower chamber. Apatite-type scale is caused to disperse (concentration and solubility moderator) - be distributed. As a result, scale adhesion can be suppressed (concentration and solubility of apatite compounds for forming scale are decreased) (see page 3 of translation).
Kitagawa does not teach a weakly basic ion exchanger.
However, Roffman teaches a water treatment device and method for treating water (see abstract; paragraph 18). The filtration chamber contains at least three components to include a weak acid cation exchanger, activated carbon, and a weak base anion exchanger. The water reacts with each component - which modify the water to be of high quality and better potability. The reactants may be arranged fully or partially mixed, or layered in one or more separate layers (see paragraph 19). Roffman teaches that the weak base scavenges for hydrogen cations in the material being treated (weakly basic ion exchanger in a hydroxyl or partially hydroxyl form) (see paragraph 23).
Accordingly, Kitagawa and Roffman are considered analogous references in that each teaches a water filter using activated carbon, a cation exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have provided in Kitagawa a weak base anion exchange resin in the second chamber, in addition to the cation exchange resin and activated carbon, for the benefit of improving the water quality, potability, and hydrogen ion scavenging function as taught by Roffman and because the water, by being in contact with the weak base anion exchange resin will have an increase in pH - thus reducing the solubility, and increasing the timespan functionality for the sequestering polyphosphate agent and the filter device as a whole.
Claim 81: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 79 further comprising a cation exchanger in the hydrogen form, Kitagawa teaches a solubility decreaser is formed when fluid is introduced into the second chamber 44. Specifically, Kitagawa teaches a dispersing agent, tannin component or lignin component (solubility decreaser) is made to elute in the softened water and passes into the lower chamber. Apatite-type scale is caused to disperse (concentration and solubility moderator) - be distributed. As a result, scale adhesion can be suppressed (concentration and solubility of apatite compounds for forming scale are decreased) (see page 3 of translation).
Kitagawa does not teach a weakly basic ion exchanger.
However, Roffman teaches a water treatment device and method for treating water (see abstract; paragraph 18). The filtration chamber contains at least three components to include a weak acid cation exchanger, activated carbon, and a weak base anion exchanger. The water reacts with each component - which modify the water to be of high quality and better potability. The reactants may be arranged fully or partially mixed, or layered in one or more separate layers (see paragraph 19). Roffman teaches that the weak base scavenges for hydrogen cations in the material being treated (weakly basic ion exchanger in a hydroxyl or partially hydroxyl form) (see paragraph 23).
Accordingly, Kitagawa and Roffman are considered analogous references in that each teaches a water filter using activated carbon, a cation exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have provided in Kitagawa a weak base anion exchange resin in the second chamber, in addition to the cation exchange resin and activated carbon, for the benefit of improving the water quality, potability, and hydrogen ion scavenging function as taught by Roffman and because the water, by being in contact with the weak base anion exchange resin will have an increase in pH - thus reducing the solubility, and increasing the timespan functionality for the sequestering polyphosphate agent and the filter device as a whole.
Claims 84 and 88: Regarding the limitation: The filter apparatus of claim 82 wherein including an anion exchanger or a weakly basic anion exchanger or depending from 83 wherein the pH decreaser is a cation exchanger in hydrogen form, Kitagawa teaches a solubility decreaser is formed when fluid is introduced into the second chamber 44. Specifically, Kitagawa teaches a dispersing agent, tannin component or lignin component (solubility decreaser) is made to elute in the softened water and passes into the lower chamber. Apatite-type scale is caused to disperse (concentration and solubility moderator) - be distributed. As a result, scale adhesion can be suppressed (concentration and solubility of apatite compounds for forming scale are decreased) (see page 3 of translation).
Kitagawa does not teach a weakly basic ion exchanger.
However, Roffman teaches a water treatment device and method for treating water (see abstract; paragraph 18). The filtration chamber contains at least three components to include a weak acid cation exchanger, activated carbon, and a weak base anion exchanger. The water reacts with each component - which modify the water to be of high quality and better potability. The reactants may be arranged fully or partially mixed, or layered in one or more separate layers (see paragraph 19). Roffman teaches that the weak base scavenges for hydrogen cations in the material being treated (weakly basic ion exchanger in a hydroxyl or partially hydroxyl form) (see paragraph 23).
Accordingly, Kitagawa and Roffman are considered analogous references in that each teaches a water filter using activated carbon, a cation exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have provided in Kitagawa a weak base anion exchange resin in the second chamber, in addition to the cation exchange resin and activated carbon, for the benefit of improving the water quality, potability, and hydrogen ion scavenging function as taught by Roffman and because the water, by being in contact with the weak base anion exchange resin will have an increase in pH - thus reducing the solubility, and increasing the timespan functionality for the sequestering polyphosphate agent and the filter device as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant fails to argue how the prior art is physically different or unobvious from the instant claims. Applicant only alleges that Kitagawa does not achieve the same function that is “decrease the dissolution behavior or the agent or the [solid] agent to reduce mineral precipitates]”. However, the prior art both anticipates and makes obvious the claimed apparatus. Including the chemical and material components. Given that chemicals and materials cannot be separated from their properties, the resulting behavior will be the same.
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 ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773