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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 03/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-15, 17-19, and 28-29 remain pending in the application, with claim 29 being withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/29/2024.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2016/128707Al, hereinafter Adams.
Regarding Claim 1, Adams teaches an apparatus for the treatment of water (“apparatus for treating water”, Abstract), the apparatus comprising a vessel (“apparatus for treating water which incorporates the vessel”, Abstract) having a water inlet and a water outlet (“a vessel … through which the water is passed”, Abstract), means for feeding water to the vessel via the water inlet (Pipe entrance of any of the following embodiments: embodiments with flow arrow at top left: Fig 1A, 2A, and 3A; Fig. 6 Element 93, Fig. 7 Element 99), the vessel containing a body of water and a solid particulate or granular material comprising one or more elementary metals or oxides thereof capable of raising the pH of the water (“treatment of water comprises contacting the water with a solid material comprising an elementary metal and effecting sufficient relative flow between the material and the water to promote pH raising interaction therebetween, The method causes the pH of the water is caused to lie within the range 7 to 11”, Abstract), and means, located within the vessel (“the water is passed along a flow path within a vessel and extending between an inlet and an outlet of the vessel”, p 3 lines 23-24; “the vessel is provided with means for agitating the water as it passes along said flow path”, p 3 lines 1-2) and connected to the water inlet (Any of the following embodiments: Fig 1A Element 19; Fig 2A Elements 23, 25, and 27; Fig 3A Element 35; any of the profiled structures shown in Fig 6 Element 93A and Fig 7 Element 99C), for causing circulatory motion of water entering the vessel sufficient to suspend the solid material within the body of water during passage of water through the vessel (“Provision of a tortuous flow path causes the water to make repeated changes of direction, ensuring effective or intimate contact with the material, thereby activating the reaction, as it passes through the vessel”, p 3 lines 5-7), whereby the pH of the water is caused to lie within the range 7 to 11 (“the pH of the water is caused to lie within the range 7 to 11”, Abstract), wherein the means for causing circulatory motion (“Inlet pipe 93 has a profiled interior …to create a vortex”, p 8 line 25) comprises a venturi effect inducing device (the profiled structures shown in Fig 6 Element 93A and Fig 7 Element 99C create a constricting section akin to a wedge type or eccentric type venturi tube).
Regarding Claim 4, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the means for causing circulatory motion further comprises a pipe extending to within the vessel (Fig. 3A-3B Element 35).
Regarding Claim 7, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the material comprises up to 17 metals and/or their oxides (“the material is or may include elemental calcium, zinc or magnesium… coated with a thin layer of the corresponding oxide”, p 3 lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 8, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the material comprises one or more of the oxides of calcium, potassium, sodium, manganese, zinc, magnesium, germanium, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, cobalt, nickel, boron, vanadium, molybdenum and selenium (“the material is or may include elemental calcium, zinc or magnesium… coated with a thin layer of the corresponding oxide”, p 3 lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 15, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (“A vessel of the present invention may be provided in a cartridge form …the cartridge is security protected”, p 10 lines 23-27), wherein the apparatus includes a control panel providing wireless feed to remote stations (“Electronics and smart technology may be employed. There are a variety of approaches but these are broadly based on operating codes stored on electronic devices. Entry of the code may be achieved by, for instance, radio/wireless RFID or Bluetooth, sms/mobile, card swipe or push button keypad.”, p 11 lines 15-18; “RFID makes no physical electrical contact.”, p 12 line 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vessel is tubular in shape (Any of embodiments depicted in Figs. 1A-4A and 6-7), manufactured of food grade materials (“The vessels described above with reference to Figures 1 to 5 may be made in the following materials… inner cartridge from acrylic plastics; and the inner spiral or propeller from nylon or other inert 3D printable material subject to approval by the water regulations authority”, p8 lines 16-19), and attached into an external metal framework (“To prevent refilling of existing cartridges, the housings may be sealed… where metal enclosures are used”, p 10 lines 29-32).
Regarding Claim 19, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vessel is tubular in shape (Fig 1A) and provided at each end with an openable lid (“Lower end assembly 5 includes a central spigot 9”, p 6 line 1; “pressure valve 88 located in upper end assembly 7”, p 6 line 22).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combined embodiments of Adams. Figure 1 has been included for clarity of record.
Figure 1. Adams Figs. 3A and 3B, annotated for diameter, Venturi effect, ribs, and vents.
PNG
media_image1.png
793
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, an embodiment of Adams teaches the venturi effect-inducing device (Figure 3A Element 35) is connected to the water inlet via connecting ribs (Fig. 3A hooks on the top of Element 39) and the venturi effect-inducing device having a semi-rectangular shaped body (Fig. 3A Element 37), an upper vent and a lower vent (Fig. 1A Elements 88 and 9, respectively; “a third embodiment in accordance with the present invention is again similar to that described above in connection with Figures 1A and 1B”, p 7 lines 7-9)
Adams also teaches “The vessels described above with reference to Figures 1 to 5…may be of any appropriate size, for instance, they may have a height of about 20 cm or more”, p 8 lines 16-20.
Given that Fig. 3A is a representation of the vessel, and the specification positively teaches vessels specifically depicted in Figs 1-5 may be heights of 20 cm or greater, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art, namely the figure reasonably teaches that length is proportional to five times the diameter, which would be at least 4 cm or more. This range of a diameter greater than 4 cm encompasses a diameter of from 4.5 to 6.5 cm, which are also values greater than 4 cm.
Furthermore, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
Adams is considered to be analogous art because Adams is in the same field of water treatment by pH adjustment using a metal/metal oxide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, for the known elements of alkaline water making devices with a profiled inlet and with connecting ribs of Adams to be combined and to be made to an appropriate size for drink formulation, including a device with a diameter falling within the range of 4.5 to 6.5 cm. Doing so would result in predictable footprint and predictable flow rate in vessels comparable in size to those in Adams, which were successfully put to use in drink formulation (p 12 lines 18-20).
Regarding Claim 6, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches “Referring to Figure 8A of the accompanying drawings, there is illustrated apparatus for the continuous measurement… of water passing through the material-containing vessels”, p 9 lines 16-19.
Moreover, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the vessel taught by Adams as the specific vessel used in the plurality of material-containing vessels discussed in a later embodiment of Adams. Doing so would result in a predictable function of the Adams method.
Regarding Claim 11, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, the apparatus comprising pipework (“water pipework”, p 11 line 26) configured to interconnect the vessels, the pipework being capable of connecting the plurality of vessels to machinery of a bottling plant (“The invention can also provide a retrofitted technology that is capable of being easily installed into existing soft drink production facilities and incorporates a pH condition monitoring system. The method can be applied to standard and high-capacity bottling facility volumes”, p 4 lines 25-28).
Adams also teaches “Referring to Figure 8A of the accompanying drawings, there is illustrated apparatus for the continuous measurement… of water passing through the material-containing vessels”, p 9 lines 16-19.
Moreover, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to apply the pipework of Adams to interconnect the vessels of Adams and incorporate them into a bottling facility. Duplication of parts, specifically vessels, would result in predictable increases in capacity for improved fulfilment of “high-capacity bottling facility volumes”(Adams, p 4 lines 27-28).
Regarding Claim 12, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches a plurality of performance and water quality probes which are configured to send data information to a control panel (“a pH probe 113, a temperature probe 114 and a conductivity/TDS probe 115. These probes are connected via cables 116 to transmitters 117 which are located within a dim rail box 110”, p 7 lines 24-28) to enable an operator to view the data information (“datalogger Episensors 106 which send data via radiowaves to a gateway 109 which in turn sends the data to an online monitoring platform 71”, p 7 lines 24-28).
Adams also teaches “Data may be sent to local service engineers via tests on their mobile phones”, p 10 lines 12-13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to employ the probes of Adams into a system including the vessel of Adams and utilize a smart phone as the mobile phone of choice for the receipt of data as taught in Adams. By sending data via smart phone, local service engineers would have results readily at hand for maintenance and monitoring purposes.
Regarding Claim 13, Adam teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches probes for water pH, conductivity, temperature, (“a pH probe 113, a temperature probe 114 and a conductivity/TDS probe 115”, p 7 lines 24-28) water flow, water presence (“Flow meters 61 and 69, each with a 4-20 mA output, are located upstream and downstream of the cartridge 68”, p 9 lines 30-31)
While Adams does not positively teach probes for water pressure, the flow meters, flow valve, and closed loop arrangements carrying out pH values (p 10 lines 4-11) can be used as probes for calculating water level. Measuring the flow rate in a closed system of known volume will also allow for the calculation of water pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the vessel of Adams and the probes of Adams to measure or calculate all water parameters of concern for proper apparatus function and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 14, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches a control panel comprising a programmable logic controller (PLC) that is programmed with an algorithm that controls, maintains and adjusts the reaction conditions within the apparatus by computing data information from a plurality of water quality probes (“These probes are connected via cables 116 to transmitters 117 which are located within a dim rail box 110. The transmitters 117 are connected to datalogger Episensors 106 which send data via radiowaves to a gateway 109 which in turn sends the data to an online monitoring platform 71.”, p 9 lines 24-27; “Flow valve 63 is controlled by a solenoid 65 connected to a pH controller 73.The pH controller reads data from the pH transmitters and adjusts the flow valve according to the desired pH output. Accordingly, adjustments of flow rate may then be used to maintain pH at the desired value via the closed loop arrangement carrying out pH measurements as well as the remote controlled flow valve. The information on temperature and pH may be displayed locally or remotely. Data may be sent to local service engineers via tests on their mobile phones. Alternatively, data may be sent to a local or remote control room where information may be analysed and any issues addressed”, p 10 lines 5-14) as well as the amount of material used, the chemical and physical properties of the elements within the material, and the target desirable chemical and physical properties of the outlet water (p 10 lines 5-14; “With electronic systems in place, the status of all cartridges in service may be instantly and continually monitored. Tampering and the installation of counterfeit or re-filled cartridges may also be detected”, p 12 lines 14-16) the PLC being configured to control one or more valves or pumps to regulate the flow rate of water through the apparatus in response to a comparison of the data information with target parameters (p 9 lines 24-27; “data may be sent to a local or remote control room where information may be analysed and any issues addressed”, p 10 lines 5-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to combine the vessel, probes, and electronic monitoring systems of Adams, to ensure a system of checks and balances with predictable quality assurance and quality control outcomes.
Claims 9, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of US 2010/0282654 Al, hereinafter Hauschild.
Regarding Claim 9, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches “Accordingly, adjustments of flow rate may then be used to maintain pH at the desired value via the closed loop arrangement carrying out pH measurements as well as the
remote controlled flow valve.” (p. 10, lines 9-11).
Adams does not positively teach a flow rate from 25 to 150 litres/min.
However, Hauschild teaches a flow rate through the vessel or each vessel is from 25 to 150 litres/min (“FIG. 6 is a schematic of one embodiment of the B-MIT comprising a modular cellular system”, [0012]; “Table 3 compares Kubota and Toray membranes for a small system (-12 m3 /day) … schematic of the Kubota system is given in FIG. 6.”, p 14 [0270]; “Maximum Average Daily flow: 53 m3/ day”, Table 3 for Kubota). 53 m3/ day, which equates to 36.8 litres/min, falls within the range of 25 to 150 litres/min.
Hauschild is considered analogous art because Hauschild addresses the same problem of water treatment and filtration at a desired flow rate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the 36.8 liter/min flow rate of Hauschild in the system of Adams as it would have been routine optimization to arrive at one of a finite number of flow rates amenable to filtration membranes used in water treatment for small systems (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Doing so would allow for post-treatment filtration to remove any potential for undesired particulates to be carried in the alkaline water from the metal granule-containing vessel.
Regarding Claim 18, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams also teaches “The vessels may be of any appropriate size, for instance, they may have a height of about 20 cm or more”, p 8 lines 19-20.
While Adams does not positively teach the vessel has a footprint of approximately 1.5 m (L), 1.5 m (W) and 1.5 m (H), mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
However, Hauschild teaches a rotating membrane reactor has a footprint of approximately 1.5 m (L), 1.5 m (W) and 1.5 m (H) (“Dimensions (L x W x H, m): 1.3 x 1.3 x 2”, Table 3 for Kubota), which is approximately the dimensions and volume of a vessel with a footprint of approximately 1.5 m (L), 1.5 m (W) and 1.5 m (H).
Hauschild also teaches water is “progressively treated and optionally conditioned prior to entering the membrane system (500) for filtering via inlet” (p 3, [0040]); “B-MIT is modular in design …adaptable to many applications … modular cellular systems and a modular membrane system in fluid communication. The components of the modular cellular systems may be prefabricated units adapted for interconnection therebetween.” (p 13, [0237]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use Adam’s vessels with appropriate size for water treatment apparatus, such as may be used in a small, modular system like Hauschild’s pre-fabricated membrane system with 1.3 x 1.3 x 2m dimensions. Doing so would allow for a commercial-sized system of 12 m3 /day (Hauschild, p 14 [0270]) to be made for Adam’s vessels using dimensions. By incorporating filtration module dimensions into the Adam vessel, it is possible to prefabricate vessel modules of equivalent or comparable sizing to filtration modules to create a system of “prefabricated units adapted for interconnection therebetween.” (Hauschild p 13, [0237]).
Regarding Claim 28, Adams teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Adams does not teach enzymatic means to clean and purify.
However, Hauschild teaches A) wherein the apparatus is provided with a media exchange box configured to interact with the outlet water to activate and enhance the pH levels and also further clean and purify the outlet water by means of one or more internal enzymes (“processed water exits the one or more isolated cellular systems and optionally subjected to a post-treatment step. This step can comprise, for example addition of enzyme for further bioremediation, … chlorination … filtering and the like”, p13 [0232]. Chlorination enhances pH levels).
Hauschild also teaches “The modular membrane system may comprise one or more distinct module designs, depending on quality of the biologically processed water, the system requirements and downstream applications of the effluent water product, with individual modules being self-contained filtration units.” (p 13, [0243]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to incorporate the enzymatic post-treatment purification, housed in a self-contained filtration unit of Hauschild (p 13, [0243]), into the apparatus of Adams. Doing so would provide further purification and quality assurance that any biological contamination is minimized.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of EP2011767A1, hereinafter Khamizov.
Regarding Claim 10, Adams teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 including the vessel of Claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more modules comprising an automatic flow valve (“remotely controlled flow valve”, p 4 line 2; “flow valve 63 installed upstream of the first test point 66. Flow valve 63 is controlled by a solenoid”, p 10 lines 4-5), a control panel (Fig. 8A, Element 111), a filed control box (Fig. 8A, Element 111; “data may be sent to a local or remote control room where information may be analysed and any issues addressed” p 10 lines 13-14), a modular diaphragmatic valve (Fig 1A Element 88),
Adams also teaches “The invention can also provide a retrofitted technology that is capable of
being easily installed into existing soft drink production facilities and incorporates a pH
condition monitoring system. The method can be applied to standard and high capacity
bottling facility volumes,” (p 4 lines 25-28) and Fig. 5 Element 83. Existence of a vessel embodiment mounted within a protected enclosure and the ability of Adams to be incorporated within the larger facility installation gives motivation for a mounted framework to maintain the vessel within the larger system.
While Adams does not positively teach the automatic flow valve is a butterfly valve, butterfly valves are a known type of a finite group of possible flow valves. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at one of a finite number of flow valve types amenable to flowthrough systems (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Adams does not positively teach external tanks or pumps.
However, Khamizov teaches an external tank for inlet feed water (Fig. 6 Element 20), a manual valve (“29-56 are valves (stopcocks)”, p 8 [0046], butterfly valves are a specific type of stopcock), an external pump for inlet feed water (Fig. 6 Element 21), a tank for outlet water (Fig. 6 Element 22), an external pump for outlet water (Fig. 6 Element 23), an external mounting framework (“Pilot tests on water conditioning have been performed, comprising integrated
treatment of artesian water with installation shown in Fig. 6”, [0045]; Fig. 6), a media exchange box (Fig. 6 Elements 18 and 19, containing granulated serpentinite), and a filtration cartridge (Fig. 6 Elements 18 and 19).
While Khamizov does not positively teach automated valves, automation versus manual operation of valves is a well-documented binary choice known in the field. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the decision to automate valves in a flowthrough systems (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Khamizov is considered analogous art because Khamizov is from the same field of treatment of artesian water with alkaline solutions and granules media including metals such as magnesium (Water filtration in the method proposed is preferably carried out through … granulated serpentinite. … with treatment… with alkaline solution”, Khamizov [0016]; “serpentinites, including… magnesium hydroxysilicate”, Khamizov [0004])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to ensure necessary drink production facility components such as the pumps, valves, installation framework, and holding tanks of Khamizov were present in the Adams “retrofitted technology that is capable of being easily installed into existing soft drink production facilities” (Adams p 4 lines 26-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Action argues that Adams can be considered to disclose a venturi effect-inducing device…However, Adams teaches otherwise, stating the profiled interior surface 93A (and 99C) are configured to create a vortex". (Remarks p 6 ¶4)
In response to the argument that “Adams provides no disclosure of a constriction in the inlet pipe that causes an increase in the velocity of the fluid and change in the water pressure on both sides of the constriction”, (Remarks p 7 ¶2), Examiner notes “Inlet pipe 93 has a profiled interior …to create a vortex”, p 8 line 25) and further presents evidence as to the properties of a vortex causing an increase of fluid velocity and a change in water pressure, as evidenced by US-2006/0272624-A1:
[0010]: “A characterising property of a vortex is that its exterior moves slowly and its interior moves fast.”
[0011]: “This effect can be explained by Bernoulli's equation, that relates the pressure, flow speed and height for flow of an ideal fluid: the difference in pressure (work per unit volume) is equal to the sum of changes in kinetic and potential energies per unit volume that occur during the flow. As water whirls, the speed of flow becomes higher nearer the centre of the flow, and hence the pressure becomes lower nearer the centre. Therefore, suspended particles are sucked by the pressure difference into the centre of the vortex flow.”
Applicant argues “the spin-inducing elements (inlet pipes 93, 99) are not "located within the vessel and connected to the water inlet" as presently claimed, but are the water inlets, which are located outside the vessels.” (Remarks p 7 ¶ 3).
Examiner suggests that structural limitations may be clarifying in defining the intended scope of the invention.
In response, Examiner notes the instant claim recites “a vessel having a water inlet and a water outlet… the vessel containing … means, located within the vessel and connected to the water inlet, for causing circulatory motion of water entering the vessel …wherein the means for causing circulatory motion comprises a venturi effect inducing device”. This suggests the inlet of the vessel is considered of the vessel, such that anything within the inlet would thus be within the vessel.
Adams teaches “Referring to Figures 1A and I B of the accompanying drawings, a first embodiment of a vessel 1 in accordance with the present invention is in the form of a hollow cylindrical member 3 which is provided with a lower end assembly 5 and an upper end assembly 7.” (Adams p 5 lns 30-32), establishing that the upper end assembly is considered an element within the vessel itself. Thus, the upper assemblies 93 and 99 of Adams Figs. 6 and 7, respectively, are similarly considered.
Applicant argues “Adams teaches different functions for these "vents" than those presently claimed.” (Remarks p 11-12).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed upper and lower vents are taught to be within the chamber, flanking the top and bottom of the venturi section, and responsible for assisting in increasing water flow and encouraging a circular flow within the chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner suggests that while additional functional language may be clarifying in defining the intended use of the invention, structural limitations may be most clarifying in defining the intended scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0053626 Al teaches a water treatment system.
WO 2016/133941 Al teaches the production of highly ionized alkaline water using a combination of reducing metals and reductive minerals.
US 2014/0290181 Al teaches a system and method for eco-friendly beverage dispensing kiosk.
Teaches a water purification filter and system.
Decon Industries Limited, DECON_Industries_Limited_Wedge_type_Venturi_2019.pdf (2019) teaches a wedge type venturi tube.
PFS Wedge Type Flow meter Data Sheet, 2012 teaches venturi differential flow meters, specifically the wedge type.
Venturi effect - Energy Education 2017 https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Venturi_effect, 2017 defines how the venturi effect is induced.
Additional Art:
US-20050109697-A1, US-5407378-A, US-20100258429-A1, US-5736034-A, US-5427885-A, US-20060272624-A1, US-20140099687-A1, US-6221260-B1, US-20080314356-A1, US-20160229527-A1
/MARRIAH CG ELLINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773