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 1-17 and 35-37 are pending:
Claims 1-4 and 35-37 are rejected.
Claims 5-17 have been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 6-8 of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues that:
A. Claims 1-2 and 4 are not obvious over Smirnov in view of Johnson.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over US 6,022,479 by Smirnov in view of US 5,635,059 by Johnson.
Prior to amendment, Applicant respectfully maintains that increasing Smirnov's volume from 1 liter (about a quart) to 2,000-3,000 gallons is not merely an obvious change in size but rather provides an inventive step at least for the reasons discussed in the Smirnov declaration, the expected dampening effect of liquid when increasing the volume approximately 7-12 thousand fold as previously explained; and that Johnson's water treatment is limited to a narrowed venturi or choke point rather than thousands of gallons in a tank.
Nonetheless, without acquiescing to the refusal, claim 1 is further amended to require a switch for each tank that determines when the corresponding tank is full, wherein each switch is operably connected to a controller with a control panel that instructs a corresponding valve to close when receiving a stop signal from the switch for the corresponding tank, thereby stopping the flow of water into the corresponding tank when full. Neither feature is disclosed in Smirnov or Johnson.
For completeness, new claim 35 adds that the controller is configured to instruct activation of the activation assembly automatically upon receiving the stop signal to begin water activation; new claim 36 adds that that the control panel includes a filling indicator activated when filling the tank(s), and an in-2 KSR International Co. v. TeleflexInc. et al. 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741(2007) (an obvious analysis must determine "whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue") citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness").3 MPEP 2143.01, III and IV; see also KSR, supra at 1740-1741; Ex parte Levengood, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1300 (BPAI 1993). 4In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986) process indicator; and new claim 37 adds a media life indicator that indicates when servicing is suggested for the activation assembly. None of these features are taught or suggested in Smirnov in view of Johnson.
B. Claim 3 is not obvious over Smirnov in view of Johnson and further in view of Wolf
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Smirnov in view of Johnson and US 2013/0313191. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and therefore includes all of the limitations of claim 1. However, the addition of Wolf fails to correct the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1 as demonstrated above; and alternatively in new claims 35-37.
This argument is moot because amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a means for powering and operating the system” recited in claim 1. The means for powering and operating the system per the instant specification corresponds to power supply 114 (see ¶72 of the instant specification) and a control panel 200 (see ¶73 of the instant specification); therefore, this structure or equivalent structure thereof capable of powering and operating the system meets the limitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirnov (USPN 6,022,479) in view of Johnson (USPN 5,635,059) and further in view of Scalf (USPN 10,941,978).
Regarding claim 1, Smirnov teaches a large-scale system (corresponds to the system shown in Fig. 1; “large scale” does not impart additional structure) for the activation of water (this limitation is recited as an intended use), the system comprising:
…activation tank (reservoir 4)…
a switch for each tank that determines when the corresponding tank is full, wherein each switch is operably connected to a controller with a control panel that instructs a corresponding valve to close when receiving a stop signal from the switch for the corresponding tank, thereby stopping the flow of water into the corresponding tank when full;
C) an activation assembly (device 2) operably connected to …for direct exposure to the water (the limitation “direct exposure” is construed broadly to mean that there is no intervening structural barrier isolating the water from the exposure and because the device 2 emits low frequency oscillations toward the water 22 this limitation is met because the device 2 provides direct exposure by applying oscillations to the water without intervening this exposure),
activation tank (i.e. reservoir 4), …activation assembly (i.e. device 2) comprising:
i. a solenoid (electromagnets 34, see C4/L35-45; the electromagnet comprises a solenoid (or coil of wire)) comprising a column (column 10) …wherein the solenoid is configured to generate a magnetic field between 2,500 and 25,000 Oersteds (electromagnets 34 generating a magnetic field in the range of 2,500-25,000 Oserteds, see C4/L25-55);
ii. a polymeric composition (polymeric composition/body 12) held within the column (polymeric composition filling said interior of said column, see claim 1) and exposed to the magnetic field (the light radiation emitted from the diodes 16 and the magnetic field to which the polymer and materials are simultaneously subjected, see C5/L1-10), the polymeric composition comprising a polymer having a linear chain length of at least 38 monomer units, and dispersed within the polymeric composition is a mixture having between 0.04 -30 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of polymer (see claim 1; Smirnov anticipates the claimed ranges for linear chain length and mixture composition parts),
at least two of:
a) one or more of a metal, metal oxide, metal nitrate and a metal sulfate (metals and metal salts, see claim 1),
b) an inorganic acid (see claim 1), and
c) an aminoaldehyde (see claim 1);
iii. a cluster of light emitted diodes (LEDs) (light emitting member comprising diodes 16) (there are a plurality of diodes which corresponds to a cluster of LEDs) emitting at the polymer composition (the light radiation emitted from the diodes 16 and the magnetic field to which the polymer and materials are simultaneously subjected, see C5/L1-10), an emission wavelength between 540nm and 560 nm (range of 400-800 nm, see claim 1; Smirnov fully encompasses the claimed range), the cluster of LEDS configured to flash at a frequency between 7.2 Hz and 8.2 Hz (see claim 1; Smirnov anticipates the claimed range for frequency); and
C) a means (battery and electronics circuit) for powering and operating the system (the battery and electronics circuit are capable of powering and operating the system, see C8/L20-45).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 400-800 nm completely encompasses the claimed range of 540-560 nm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Smirnov does not teach (1) having the activation tank is configured for storing at least 2000 gallons of water, (2) the system having two activation tanks such that each tank has an activation assembly; and (3) does not explicitly teach the column is wrapped in wiring of the solenoid; and (4) a switch for each tank that determines when the corresponding tank is full, wherein each switch is operably connected to a controller with a control panel that instructs a corresponding valve to close when receiving a stop signal from the switch for the corresponding tank, thereby stopping the flow of water into the corresponding tank when full.
In a related field of endeavor, Johnson teaches a method and apparatus for water treatment (see ABS) comprising two identical treatment units (see Fig. 6) and a column wrapped in wiring of the solenoid (coils 74) (coil 74 of wire helically wrapped along the length of the tube, see C9/L10-20 and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation tank and activation assembly of Smirnov by duplicating said tank and assembly to provide two identical treatment units as disclosed by Johnson because multiple treatment units increase treatment efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wiring of solenoid and column of Smirnov by arranging the wiring of solenoid around the column as disclosed by Johnson because it achieves the predictable result of defining an exposure zone within a tube (i.e. column) (Johnson, see C9/L14-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation tank of Smirnov (as modified by Johnson) to adjust the size of the tank, including a size of at least 2,000 gallons because doing so achieves the predictable result of accommodating large quantities and adapting to different applications. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237(CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In a related field of endeavor, Scalf teaches a refrigerator fluid dispenser (see ABS) comprising a switch (control panel 18 includes switches, see C5/L25-35) for a tank that determines when the corresponding tank is full (characteristics of the water may include status, e.g. full, see C7/L5-15), wherein each switch is operably connected to a controller (water level sensor may generate a signal that is communicated to a controller to enable the controller to determine a water level in the receptacle, see C7/L28-35) with a control panel (i.e. control panel 18) that instructs a corresponding valve to close when receiving a stop signal from the switch for the corresponding tank, thereby stopping the flow of water into the corresponding tank when full (Each of valves 106, 114 and sensors 108, 112 is additionally coupled to a controller 118 to enable the controller to control dispensing valve 114 to dispense fluid from fluid storage receptacle 102, to control fill valve 106 to fill receptacle 102, see C10/L40-50; in the event that dispensing is occurring when receptacle fill valve 106 is closed, the determined volume is based on the change in fluid level in the receptacle, see C10/L55-65; the combination of C10/L40-50 and C10/L55-65 implies the claimed limitation is met).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each tank of Smirnov (as modified by Johnson) by incorporating a control panel with controller, switch and valve as disclosed by Scalf because it is the simple addition of known devices for the benefit of controlling the levels within a receptacle (Scalf, see C11/L45-56).
Regarding claim 2, Smirnov, Johnson and Scalf teach the system of claim 1.
Smirnov does not particularly limit the size of the device as it can be constructed in any convenient size (Smirnov, see C8/L15-25); Smirnov further discloses in an alternative embodiment the liquid volume in the reservoir is 1 liter (Smirnov, see C8/L15-25); and two LEDs on the electrical circuit (Smirnov, see Fig. 5); having a column of 102.91 cm3 (Smirnov, calculated based on diameter of 1” and height of 8”, see C8/L15-25; therefore, the polymeric composition is <102.91 cm3).
However, Smirnov does not teach wherein each activation tank is 3000 gallons and the activation assembly comprises 7 LEDs; and wherein the polymeric composition has a volume of about 32,000 cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the activation tank of Smirnov (as modified by Johnson) to adjust the size of the tank, including a size of 3,000 gallons because doing so achieves the predictable result of accommodating large quantities and adapting to different applications. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237(CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been further obvious to modify the activation assembly of Smirnov (as modified by Johnson) to adjust the number of LEDS to include 7 LEDs and adjust the size of the column, including a size of 32,000 cm3 in order to obtain a higher light intensity and enhanced activation capacity for the benefit of efficiently treating larger quantities and optimizing the overall treatment process. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Smirnov, Johnson and Scalf teach a method of water activation (see ABS), comprising the steps of:
a) providing the system of claim 1 (the combination of Smirnov and Johnson teaches the claimed system);
b) filling each of two activation tanks with water (Smirnov, “the reservoir 4 is largely filled with liquid 22”, see C3/L65-67 therefore the step of filling took place) (Smirnov as modified by Johnson teaches the claimed limitation);
c) activating the activation assembly to produce magnetic field between 2,500 and 25,000 Oersteds (Smirnov, electromagnets 34 generating a magnetic field in the range of 2,500-25,000 Oserteds, see C4/L25-55); and
flashing the LEDs a frequency (Smirnov, flashes of light, see C2/L35-45) between 7.2 Hz and 8.2 Hz (Smirnov, see claim 1; Smirnov anticipates the claimed range) for …about 1 hour (a period of time usually 30-45 minutes, see C8/L35-45; the fall as disclosed by Smirnov overlaps with the claimed range at an end-point; about 1 hour is interpreted to mean +/- 15 minutes), thereby inducing low frequency oscillations of 0.5 to 5.0 Hz (Smirnov, see C6/L1-5; Smirnov anticipates the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 30-45 minutes overlaps the claimed range of 45 minutes – 1 at an end point. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirnov (USPN 6,022,479) in view of Johnson (USPN 5,635,059) in view of Scalf (USPN 10,941,978) and further in view of Wolf (US 2013/0313191).
Regarding claim 3, Smirnov, Johnson and Scalf teach the system of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach a reverse osmosis system upstream of each activation assembly.
In a related field of endeavor, Wolf teaches a water treatment system and method (see ABS) comprising a reverse osmosis system (HP membrane subsystem 920 can include one or more reverse osmosis filters, see ¶169) upstream of the liquid activator assembly (UV 922) (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each activation assembly of Smirnov by incorporating an upstream reverse osmosis system as disclosed by Wolf because it provides the benefit of removing salt and other ionic species thereby allowing the system to operate in an efficient and reliable manner (Wolf, see ¶169).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirnov (USPN 6,022,479) in view of Johnson (USPN 5,635,059) in view of Scalf (USPN 10,941,978) and further in view of Ruffin (WO 2020/231435).
Regarding claim 35, Smirnov, Johnson and Scalf teach the system of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach where the controller is configured to instruct activation of the activation assembly automatically upon receiving the stop signal to begin water activation.
In a related field of endeavor, Ruffin teaches a water filtration system (see ABS) comprising controller (controller 1010) is configured to instruct activation of the activation assembly automatically upon receiving the signal to begin water activation (controller 1010 configured to activate the light source upon sensing a signal from one or more of an switch/actuator 1020, timer 1030 and flow sensor, see pg. 13, lines 6-11 and claim 8; the controller 1010 may activate the light source 490 based upon a predetermined volume of water flowing into and/or out of the filter 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller configured to a stop signal of Smirnov (as modified by Scalf) by configuring to instruct activation of activation assembly automatically upon receiving the signal to begin water activation as disclosed by Ruffin because it allows for automatic purification of the water. (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 36, Smirnov, Johnson, Scalf and Ruffin teach the system of claim 35, wherein the control panel comprises a filling indicator activated when filling the tank(s) (Scalf, fill indicators, see C7/L15-25 and indicating that the receptacle is full, see C11/L45-55), and an in-process indicator (Scalf, light indicator, see C7/L15-25 and user displays 82 including various indicators, see C9/L1-10).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirnov (USPN 6,022,479) in view of Johnson (USPN 5,635,059) in view of Scalf (USPN 10,941,978) and further in view of Guess (US 2012/0318723).
Regarding claim 37, Smirnov, Johnson and Scalf teach the system of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the control panel comprises a media life indicator that indicates when servicing is suggested for the activation assembly.
In a related field of endeavor, Guess teaches a water dispensing (see ABS) comprising control panel (control panel 24) comprises a media life indicator that indicates when servicing is suggested for the activation assembly (user control panel 24 includes a numbers of indicators 42 configured to provide feedback to the user, the indicators 42 may be embodied as light-emitting diodes that are activated to alert the user to a condition of the water dispensing system 10, e.g. expired water filter, see ¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control panel of Smirnov (as modified by Scalf) by incorporating a media life indicator as disclosed by Guess because it is the simple addition of a known indicator to a known control device obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of alerting a user of a condition of the water dispending system (Guess, see ¶31) with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 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, Benjamin L. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778