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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed February 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims following amendments and/or cancellation.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-2, 6-25
Withdrawn claims:
6-24
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
3-5
Amended claims:
1
New claims:
25
Claims currently under consideration:
1-2, 25
Currently rejected claims:
1-2, 25
Allowed claims:
None
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).
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]).
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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 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 claim 2, Akizuki also teaches using purified water ([0023]).
Claim 25 is 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) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hori (JPH 01-176487 A)(IDS Reference filed 10/14/2022).
Regarding claim 25, Akizuki teaches that 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.
The cited prior art does not teach that the liquid mineral extract comprises chloride ions, magnesium ions, sodium ions, and sulfate ions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 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).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-5 over Akizuki: 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. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Akizuki and Yanou.
The rejections of claims 1-5 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
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 Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793