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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Notice of Appeal filed on 04/02/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.
The Waterdrop reference is removed. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 19-39 remain pending in the application. Examiner notes the 01/23/2026 amendment to specification [0015] overcomes the new matter Specification objection and further notes that the language of 07/18/2022 Claim 19 reciting “A cartridge for treating water, comprising cross-linked silicic acid” would be supported by the amended specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The present claims require a porous modification of silicon dioxide. JACC's silica sols, which lack pores by definition and by express disclosure in Table 1, therefore cannot satisfy this requirement.” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 7, ¶ 3).
In response to applicant's argument that “In the porosity section of the table, silica gels are described as having defined pores with a narrow pore size distribution, whereas silica sols are indicated as having no pore structure at all” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 7, ¶ 2), Examiner clarifies Table 1 of JACC:
The Pore size distribution is expressly disclosed as “Wide”, in comparison to, for example, pyrogenic SAS, whose pore size and pore size distribution are both listed as “None”.
Applicant argues “the §103 rejection rests on a technical premise that is directly contradicted by the sole reference relied upon for that premise. Because JACC expressly teaches that porous silica gels exhibit only low loss on drying, and that high drying losses are exclusive to non- porous silica sols, the Examiner's combination lacks substantial evidence and cannot support a conclusion of obviousness” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 8, ¶ 1).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination lack substantial evidence, Examiner notes JACC is not the sole reference, but importantly JOSEF teaches and provides motivation for a silica mixture with a moisture content not higher than 75 weight % in a form “superior to other forms, such as powder, with respect to packaging and handling, being dust-free and free-flowing” (JOSEF p 3¶3), see previous Office Action pgs 8-9.
Applicant argues “Claim 37 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being directed to an impossible combination of containing a cation exchanger while also being filled with silica gel granules. Yet, the allegedly impossible has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious” (Applicant’s Remarks, p 8, ¶ 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the final rejection is contradictory, MPEP 2143.03 (I) states “ Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered …the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP § 2175) and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable.”
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/26/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of record, Examiner notes the following claim interpretations:
For Claim 19, Examiner interprets the conditional limitation as “A cartridge for treating water, comprising silica gel granules, wherein the cartridge is capable of releasing an amount of silicon when water is passed therethrough, such that for a dwell time of between 20 s and 20 min, the cartridge is capable of enriching water with more than 5 mg/L of silicon.”
MPEP 2114 (I) states “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus."
Instant specification [0017] establishes that enrichment is dependent on solubility “when choosing a material with a high moisture content and/or a high proportion of silanol groups, a sufficiently high solubility can be achieved to obtain sufficient silicon release.”
Claim 19 recites “when water is passed therethrough for a dwell time of between 20 s and 20 min, the water is enriched with silicon at a concentration of more than 5 mg/1.”
Examiner interprets water enrichment with silicon “at a concentration of more than 5 mg/1.” as a functionality dependent on an inherent property of the silica gel granules themselves.
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) 19, 23-27, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3257817A1 to Minoudis in view of WO 99/35086, hereinafter JOSEF, further in view of JACC (ECETOC. Synthetic Amorphous Silica (CAS No. 7631-86-9). ECETOC JACC No. 51. ISSN-0773-6339-51. Brussels, September 2006. Pp 1-48.)
Regarding Claim 19, Minoudis teaches a cartridge for treating water (Fig. 3 Element 4), comprising silica granules which, when water is passed therethrough, releases an amount of silicon (“In the last step, the water is passed through a quartz layer (5) (made of silicon dioxide), releasing soluble silicon in the water”, [0022]) such that, when water is passed therethrough for a dwell time, the water is enriched with silicon (“metallic elements such as calcium, potassium, silicon, vanadium and yttrium is added at low concentrations… through a quartz layer (5) (made of silicon dioxide) releasing soluble silicon in the water”, [0022]).
Minoudis does not explicitly teach the water content of the silica, with respect to the limitation of “silica gel granules composed of a water-containing, porous, amorphous modification of silicon dioxide”.
However, JOSEF teaches “mixing wet silica precipitate, obtainable by methods known in the
art, with appropriate quantities of dry silica, to form a mixture having a moisture content not higher than 75 weight %” (Summary of Invention).
JOSEF provides the following motivation for silica prepared in this manner :
“It is often desirable to obtain the silica in granulated form, because granules are superior to other forms, such as powder, with respect to packaging and handling, being dust-free and free-flowing” (p 3 ¶3)
“It is an object of the present invention to provide a process for the preparation of granular silica, which is technically and economically advantageous in comparison to the methods known in the prior art. In particular, it is an object of the present invention to provide a process for the preparation of silica in a granulated form which does not require a separate, tedious and expensive compacting and agglomeration procedures.” (p 4, ¶3-4)
Minoudis is analogous because Minoudis is in the field of a combinatory gravity driven household filter/mineralization pitcher.
JOSEF is analogous because JOSEF teaches a mixed silica with high water content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the silica emitting layer of Minoudis with the mixed silica of JOSEF comprising at least wet silica and/or dry silica. Doing so would allow for a silica in a form “superior to other forms, such as powder, with respect to packaging and handling, being dust-free and free-flowing” (JOSEF p 3¶3), the manufacture of which “does not require a separate, tedious and expensive compacting and agglomeration procedures.” (JOSEF p 4, ¶3-4).
The combination of Minoudis and JOSEF does not explicitly teach the quantitative value measurement of the silica material properties of loss on drying or solubility.
However, JACC teaches silica gel granules composed of a water-containing, porous, amorphous modification of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Table 1), wherein silica gel granules exhibit a loss on drying of more than 30% (“Sol b 50-85%... b = After drying according to DIN 66131”, Table 1).
JACC also teaches amorphous silica exceeds the 5mg/L solubility of quartz, which is the silica layer of Minoudis, and provides motivation for using amorphous silica for increased solubility, and thus increased enrichment, over quartz (“The solubility of amorphous and crystalline silica (quartz) has been investigated in the past. The saturation concentration of dissolved silica was 2.0 mmol/l (120 mg SiO2/l) for amorphous silica, whereas quartz exhibited a low solubility of about 5 mg/l (Iler, 1979).”, p 23 ¶2).
JACC is analogous because JACC addresses silica composition characterization techniques and quantitative characterization values for both dry and wet silicas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the silica emitting layer of Minoudis with the mixed silica of JOSEF comprising at least wet silica and/or dry silica such as the amorphous silicas of JACC Table 1 while still achieving the expected results of silicon enrichment resulting from inherent silica solubility properties of JACC, motivated by improving upon the original silica emitting layer of Minoudis goal of “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, (Minoudis [0022]), given the increased solubility of the silica of JACC.
Therefore, based on the instant specification at [0017] and [0034] showing that silicic acid which has a solubility of more than 80 mg/l is required to achieve the instant invention, the silica gel granules of modified Minoudis having a solubility of 120 mg/l would be capable of “releas[ing] soluble silicon species such that, when water is passed therethrough for a dwell time of between 20 s and 20 min, the water is enriched with silicon at a concentration of more than 5 mg/l”.
Regarding Claim 23, Minoudis teaches the cartridge is adapted for a pressure- driven or gravity-driven filter system (“a multi-step filter, which reduces or even eliminates chlorine, lead and other harmful agents from potable water by gravity filtration”, [0008]).
Regarding Claims 24 and 26, Minoudis is silent to loss on ignition and surface area properties of its silica emitting layer.
However, an embodiment of JACC teaches silica gel granules exhibit a loss on ignition at 1000 °C between 7 % and 9 % and have a specific surface area overlapping 820 and 1000 m2/g (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the embodiment of JACC as the dry silica in the mixture of JOSEF, while still achieving the expected results of silicon enrichment resulting from inherent silica solubility properties of JACC, motivated by improving upon the original silica emitting layer of Minoudis goal of “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, (Minoudis [0022]), given the increased solubility of the silica of JACC.
Regarding Claim 25, Minoudis is silent on loss of drying.
However, JACC teaches the synthetic amorphous silica exhibits a loss on drying between 55 and 65 %. (JACC- p 18 Table 1 Sol: 50-85%; overlapping range).
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
JACC also provides motivation for using amorphous silica for increase solubility (“The solubility of amorphous and crystalline silica (quartz) has been investigated in the past. The
saturation concentration of dissolved silica was 2.0 mmol/l (120 mg SiO2/l) for amorphous silica, whereas quartz exhibited a low solubility of about 5 mg/l (Iler, 1979).”, p 23 ¶2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the silica emitting layer of Minoudis with the amorphous silica of JACC while still achieving the expected results of silicon enrichment, motivated by improving upon the original silica emitting layer of Minoudis goal of “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, (Minoudis [0022]), given the increased solubility of the silica of JACC.
Regarding Claim 27, Minoudis is silent of silica solubility.
However, JACC teaches a solubility of more than 80 mg/1 “The solubility of amorphous and crystalline silica (quartz) has been investigated in the past. The saturation concentration of dissolved silica was 2.0 mmol/l (120 mg SiO2/l) for amorphous silica, whereas quartz exhibited a low solubility of about 5 mg/l (Iler, 1979)”, (p 23 ¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the silica emitting layer of Minoudis with the amorphous silica of JACC while still achieving the expected results of silicon enrichment, motivated by improving upon the original silica emitting layer of Minoudis goal of “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, (Minoudis [0022]), given the increased solubility of the silica of JACC.
Regarding Claim 31, Minoudis teaches a table water filter comprising the cartridge according to claim 19 (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Minoudis teaches a method for treating water (Abstract), comprising: providing the cartridge as in claim 19 (See Claim 19 rejection); passing water to be treated through the silica and thereby enriching the water with silicon (“Layers of bakuhan rock (11) and taicho rock (12), through which the water is then passed, add the necessary metallic elements, while a layer of quartz (5) releases soluble silicon thereto”, Abstract; “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, the substituted silica emitting layer of modified Minoudis would achieve the expected results of silicon enrichment resulting from inherent silica solubility properties of JACC, motivated by improving upon the original silica emitting layer of Minoudis goal of “releasing soluble silicon in the water”, (Minoudis [0022]), given the increased solubility of the silica of JACC.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Minoudis teaches a solubility of 120 mg/1 “The solubility of amorphous and crystalline silica (quartz) has been investigated in the past. The saturation concentration of dissolved silica was 2.0 mmol/l (120 mg SiO2/l) for amorphous silica, whereas quartz exhibited a low solubility of about 5 mg/l (Iler, 1979)”, (JACC p 23 ¶2).
Claim(s) 20-22, 30, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoudis in view of JOSEF further in view of JACC, as applied to the claims above, further in view of Puritech (Puritech. Mineral Water Pots - Water Purification Systems. Dec. 10, 2016. https://puritech.co.za/mineral-water-pots. Accessed 5/5/2025.), as evidenced by Annsation (Annsation. Maifan Stones. Aug. 8, 2013. https://annsation.com/product/maifan-stones/. Accessed 5/5/20225.).
Regarding Claim 20, Minoudis teaches the cartridge contains carbon (“the first layer consisting of a plant carbon layer (8), in particle form”, [0021]).
While Minoudis does not positively teach the granular carbon is activated carbon, Minoudis teaches that activated carbon filters are known in the art [0006].
However, Puritech teaches a multistage filter for treating water contains granular activated carbon (p 7).
Puritech is analogous art because Puritech addresses the same problem of mineral enrichment in water using a combination of sorbents and alkalizing filter material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use specifically granular activated carbon, such as in Puritech, for the filter of Minoudis. Doing so would obtain the known result of filtration while taking advantage of the properties of activated carbon “Activated carbon is an ideal medium for the removal of chlorine, chloramines, disinfection byproducts, and other compounds which create color, taste, and odor” (Puritech p 7), given “Carbon is an excellent material for water filtration since it can retain substances in a solid, liquid or even gaseous form which come in contact with the filter and at multiple quantities compared to its weight. This property is employed by the filter” (Minoudis [0021]).
Regarding Claim 21, Minoudis teaches the cartridge contains an ion exchange resin (“An object of the present invention is also to offer a jug incorporating a multi-step filter, which has a filter system with a mixture of plant carbon from biological coconut and an ion-exchange resin.”, [0014]).
Minoudis does not positively teach the ion exchange resin is a cation exchanger.
However, an embodiment of Puritech teaches cation exchangers for water treatment (“For water treatment purposes cation resin can be purchased in the sodium (Na) or hydrogen (H)”, p 16 ¶2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the specific ion exchanger of Puritech, that is to say a cation exchanger, in the Minoudis system. Doing so would have the expected result of targeted removal of unwanted ionic contaminants.
Regarding Claim 22, Minoudis teaches the cartridge contains bakuhanseki, which is an alkalizing filter material (“metallic elements such as calcium, potassium, silicon, vanadium and yttrium is added at low concentrations”, [0022]). While Minoudis does not positively teach the composition of bakuhanseki, bakuhan-seki is equivalent to maifan, as evidenced by Annsation (“Maifan Stone, also known as bakuhanseki… Maifan stones contain plenty of essential elements, such as calcium, Iron, zinc, magnesium and selenium and have a great capacity of absorbing heavy metal ions”, p1 ¶1-2).
However, Puritech teaches maifan, an alkalizing filter material which comprises at least one of the materials selected from the group consisting of dolomites, half-burnt dolomites, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, metal oxides, semimetal oxides, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, alkali metal hydroxides, and alkaline earth metal hydroxides (“Maifanitum Mineral Balls are non-toxic, harmless, and have a certain biological
activity of compound mineral or medicinal rocks. Its main chemical components are
inorganic aluminosilicate. These include Si2O3, Fe2O3, FeO, MgO, CaO, K2O, Na2O,
TiO2, P2O5, MnO”, p 11 ¶1; “also contains all the necessary constant elements … such as K, Na, Ca, Mg, Cu, Mo, and other trace elements… They will increase the mineral content of
your water over time”, p 11 ¶1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that the composition of bakuhanseki was similar to or could be substituted with the specific maifan/bakuhanseki composition of Puritech for water purification purposes. This would lead to the expected result of increased “ mineral content of your water over time”, (Puritech p 11 ¶1-2) by “adding metallic elements to it” (Minoudis Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Minoudis teaches the cartridge is in the form of a disposable cartridge for a table water filter, (Fig. 3; “a time switch is mount and which can measure the required time period until the recommended replacement of the filter”, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 35, Minoudis teaches the cartridge contains an ion exchange resin (“An object of the present invention is also to offer a jug incorporating a multi-step filter, which has a filter system with a mixture of plant carbon from biological coconut and an ion-exchange resin.”, [0014]).
Minoudis does not positively teach the ion exchange resin is a cation exchanger.
However, an embodiment of Puritech teaches cation exchangers for water treatment (“For water treatment purposes cation resin can be purchased in the sodium (Na) or hydrogen (H)”, p 16 ¶2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the specific ion exchanger of Puritech, that is to say a cation exchanger, in the Minoudis system. Doing so would have the expected result of targeted removal of unwanted cationic contaminants, softening the water.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 38, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoudis in view of JOSEF further in view of JACC, further in view of Puritech, as evidenced by Annsation, as applied to the claims above, further in view of ECOLAB (Weak Acid Cation (WAC) Porous (2018) Accessed 11/15/2025. Accessed 11/15/2025), hereinafter ECOLAB, which incorporates by reference (Purolite C107E. Accessed 11/15/2025), hereinafter Purolite
Regarding Claim 28, While modified Minoudis is silent on granule size, Minoudis does teach the silica is in the form of granules (Fig. 3 Element 5), and Puritech teaches the silica in the form of granules with an average grain size produced as requested within a range overlapping 0.5 to 3.0 mm (“Granularity range: 2-150 meshes (10-0.01mm). It can be produced as request. Main use: It is used in the industries such as green and black carbonization silicon, common glass products, porcelain enamel, cast steel, water filtration, alkali, chemical industry and sandblast.”, p 14 ¶8).
However, ECOLAB teaches the cation exchanger in the form of granules with an average grain size within a range overlapping 0.5 to 3.0 mm (p 2 Particle Size Range 300- 1600 µm).
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
ECOLAB is analogous because ECOLAB teaches particle sizes of cation exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the appropriate size range of silica granules needed to meet water filtration design needs . It would have been obvious to try maintaining consistency in sizing with the ion exchange material, such as the size taught in ECOLAB, for ease of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 29, Examiner interprets “wherein the cation exchanger is loaded with at least hydrogen to at least 30 % of its total capacity” to mean that the cation exchanger can be loaded with anything to at least 30%, with “anything” being at least hydrogen. Examiner interprets 30% of its total capacity to mean 30% of the functional groups of the cation exchanger.
Minoudis is silent on cation exchanger loading capacity.
However, an embodiment of Puritech teaches cation exchangers for water treatment loaded with at least hydrogen (“For water treatment purposes cation resin can be purchased in the sodium (Na) or hydrogen (H)”, p 16 ¶2). The regenerated state of a resin in hydrogen is in hydrogen form, meaning the functional groups will approach complete hydrogen form. However, the effective state of the hydrogen will depend on the surroundings and the operating conditions, such as the pH, at any given moment of use, as well as the pKa of the functional group.
MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the specific ion exchanger of Puritech, that is to say a cation exchanger loaded with hydrogen, in the Minoudis system. Doing so would have the expected result of targeted removal of unwanted contaminants.
Regarding Claim 38, While Minoudis does not quantify volume ratio, Minoudis Fig. 3 suggests equal layers of ion exchange material and silica material. It would be obvious to conserve these proportions.
Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A) states “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”
Therefore, it would be obvious to design the layers in a ratio ideal to meet the design needs of the water quality and flow rate desired.
Regarding Claim 39, Minoudis is silent a weakly acidic cation exchange resin.
However, ECOLAB teaches the cation exchanger in the form of a weakly acidic cation exchange resin (p 1 Category List – WAC Macroporous).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the cation exchanger of ECOLAB in Minoudis given ECOLAB Principal Applications include use for “Potable Water” (ECOLAB p 2 first bullet).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Minoudis in view of JOSEF further in view of JACC, as applied to the claims above, further in view of Biocera (Biocera. Sept. 16, 2019.), hereinafter Biocera.
Regarding Claim 34, While Minoudis does not positively teach the source water entering the cartridge, Minoudis suggests that water is tap water “the quality of tap water is usually poor” [0005], and that RO filtration is a known remedy for treating tap water “the art include the use of filters on the water supply, the filters being either of the active carbon, reverse osmosis or distillation type”[0006], and that it would be advantageous to follow RO filtration with polishing/mineralization provided by the Minoudis system “The most significant problem of the said filters is that they retain metals and trace elements from water, irrespective of whether these
are beneficial… without providing all those nutrient ingredients required for the organism from water, resulting to an in sufficient hydration… the present invention… adds alkaline
elements in water” [0006-0009]
Additionally, Biocera suggests water to be treated is passed through a reverse osmosis system prior to being passed through mineralization filter pitcher (“Biocera Antioxidant Alkaline Water filtration systems allow individuals to enjoy pure and mineral-rich water. …They come in various sizes to meet both residential and commercial needs… Biocera Antioxidant Alkaline filters are designed to add beneficial minerals to water, rather than purifying it. Therefore, it is recommended to use reverse osmosis (RO) filtration before employing Biocera Antioxidant Alkaline Filters for the best results.”, p 26, Awesom Features).
Biocera is analogous because Biocera is a household filter pitcher with an alkalizing cartridge media to add beneficial minerals to water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use RO filtration prior to Minoudis treatment, as suggested by Biocera, to further purify the water prior to consumption.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Minoudis in view of JOSEF further in view of JACC, as applied to the claims above, further in view of Annsation.
Regarding Claim 36, While Minoudis does not positively teach filling a heating or cooling system with the water, the Minoudis household jug of filtered water suggests common kitchen utility such as refrigeration in a cooling system, cooking, or using filtered water to make ice.
However, Annsation teaches filling a heating or cooling system with the water:“Using Maifan enriched water for cooking or preparing tea or coffee will make it easy to enjoy all the benefits.” (p 1 ¶3).
Annsation is analogous because Annsation uses mineralized water to fill a heating system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the filtered, mineralized water of Minoudis in heating systems such as those of Annsation, with the intended result of making and/or consuming sustenance derived from the filtered water. Doing so would allow those consuming the end result to gain benefit from the mineralization effects of the Minoudis system (“a jug with a multi-step filter, which improves the taste and quality of water”, Minoudis [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 37 recites “The cartridge as claimed in Claim 19, wherein the cartridge is filled with the silica gel granules, and wherein the silica gel granules have an SiO2 content, calculated on a basis of dried substance, of at least 50 %.”
The underlined passages above are allowable aspects of the claim.
Support for the allowable aspects of the claim may be found in [0039].
The importance of these aspects to the inventions can be summarized as: a higher silanol group presence leads to higher solubility and thus higher silicon release/enrichment.
Based on the Examiner’s reading of the original disclosure, a higher silanol group presence leads to higher solubility and thus higher silicon release/enrichment.
Prior art relevant to Claim 37 include the following:
Minoudis in view of JOSEF further in view of JACC, teaches a majority of limitations recited in Claim 37;
The combined references do not teach a cartridge filled with the silica gel granules.
Although the other layers of Minoudis could be removed and replaced with a full layer of silica, such a proposed modification would change the principle of operation, namely the ability for Minoudis to function with multiple means of both enrichment and purification, as it is originally taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Ben 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.
/MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights