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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-2, 6-24
Withdrawn claims:
6-24
Previously canceled claims:
3-5
Newly canceled claims:
25
Amended claims:
1
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1-2
Currently rejected claims:
1-2
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “potassium ions, chloride ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, sodium ions, and sulfate ions, the concentration of which is the highest of the metal ions present in the liquid mineral extract”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which ion has the highest concentration of the metal ions present in the liquid mineral extract. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the potassium ions are the highest concentration based on the previous claims and the instant specification ([0007]).
Claim 2 is rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akizuki (JPH06343981A)(IDS Reference filed 10/14/2022) in view of Yanou (US 2004/0060873 A1), Hori (JPH 01-176487 A)(IDS Reference filed 10/14/2022), and Cirino (Cirino, Erica “What pH Should My Drinking Water Be?”, Healthline, updated March 30, 2019 [accessed online August 13, 2026]).
Regarding claim 1, Akizuki teaches a method of producing mineral water ([0001]) comprising carbonizing the bark of Japanese oak (i.e., a plant derived raw material; [0022]) and mixing with purified water (i.e., a solvent) to obtain mineral water ([0023]). Akizuki also teaches embodiments where the mineral water comprises more potassium ions than the other metals present (p. 20, Table 1, comparative examples 1 and 2; [0023]). Akizuki also teaches that the process is performed at 20[Symbol font/0xB0]C (which falls in the claimed range of “5 to 95[Symbol font/0xB0]C”) for 30 minutes (which falls within the claimed range of “5 minutes or more”) ([0023]). Akizuki also teaches charcoal is used because it contains calcium and potassium ions ([0009]). Thus, it logically follows that an extract made with the charcoal would comprise calcium and potassium ions.
Although the invention of Akizuki does not teach the use of activated carbon material, Akizuki does teach that activated carbon is often used in water filtration ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process taught by Akizuki with the use of activated carbon made from the charcoal described in Akizuki. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Akizuki teaches that activated carbon can remove harmful substances and have a sterilizing effect ([0005]).
Akizuki does not teach that the plant-derived raw material is from palm shell; the liquid mineral extract comprising chloride ions, magnesium ions, sodium ions, and sulfate ions; or wherein the liquid mineral extract has a pH of 9.04 to 10.56.
Regarding wherein the plant-derived raw material is from palm shell, Yanou teaches of a water filter with activated carbon ([0004]), where the activated carbon is made from coconut palm shell ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Akizuki to use coconut palm shell charcoal as taught by Yanou. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another art equivalent and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Regarding the liquid mineral extract comprising chloride ions, magnesium ions, sodium ions, and sulfate ions, Hori teaches of a composition that is added to water, the composition comprising sodium chloride (i.e., sodium and chloride ions), potassium chloride (i.e., potassium and chloride ions), calcium sulfate (i.e., calcium and sulfate ions), and magnesium chloride (i.e., magnesium and chloride ions) (p. 5, Example 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making mineral water as taught by Akizuki with the addition of the minerals taught by Hori. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Hori teaches that adding these minerals to water results in a mild and delicious water (p. 5, Example 2).
Regarding wherein the liquid mineral extract has a pH of 9.04 to 10.56, Cirino teaches of alkaline water having a pH between 8 and 9 (which lies close to the claimed range of “9.04 to 10.56”; p. 3, Table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Akizuki to raise the pH to that taught by Cirino. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Cirino teaches that there have been studies that alkaline water may benefit people suffering from acid reflux and high blood pressure, and that alkaline water may be helpful after dehydration (p. 3, ¶ 5-6).
With respect to the close range, MPEP §2144.05 states a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Akizuki also teaches using purified water ([0023]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1 and 2 over Akizuki and Yanou: Applicant’s arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Akizuki does not teach the new amended pH (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 4).
Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the claims as presently amended would not be anticipated/obvious in view of Akizuki and Yanou. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Akizuki, Yanou, Hori, and Cirino.
The rejections of claims 1 and 2 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights