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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1, 3, 6, 11, and 43-47
Withdrawn Claims: 32
Cancelled Claims: 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-31, and 33-42
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 6, and 11 and the addition of new claims 43-47 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 6, and 11, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the newly amended limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 6, that the prior art does not teach the claim limitations pertaining to the specific order of:
inlet -> second carbon block containing zero valent iron -> first carbon block excluding zero valent iron -> outlet
and that this order provides an unexpected technical benefits of removing multiple heavy metals reliably by a plurality of filters, while the filter requires less space. Specifically, Choi teaches the carbon blocks in different housings, and does not teach zero valent iron as part of either carbon block, Liu does not teach the specific sequential order and does not teach the compositions of the carbon blocks, and that Addiego teaches a filter composition and not a filter module and therefore instant claim 6 is not allowable (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Page 10 to Page 15, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Choi specifically teaches the order and structure of the instant invention including: the inlet followed by the first carbon block excluding zero valent iron and then the outlet, the composition of the carbon blocks excluding the zero valent iron, and the inclusion of two carbon blocks, although in different containers.
Liu specifically teaches the combination of multiple carbon blocks in the same housing to same space and even includes an activated carbon layer with zero valent iron surrounding an activated carbon layer without zero valent iron. The layered structure of Liu applied to Choi would naturally lead to the specific order of: inlet -> second carbon block containing zero valent iron -> first carbon block excluding zero valent iron -> outlet.
Following this, Addiego is brought in to teach common compositional quantities of aero valent iron when it included in carbon blocks. The benefits are not unexpected – multi-layered filters are well known in the art and Liu explicitly teaches that combining carbon filters into layers within a single module reduces space requirements. Therefore, instant claim 6 is not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding Addiego, that modifying the concentric filters of Choi and Liu with the zero valent iron of Addiego would require impermissible hindsight (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Page 15, Paragraph 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, Liu teaches the use of zero valent iron in concentric filters and so the inclusion of a specific concentration of zero valent iron as taught by Addiego would not require impermissible hindsight.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1, that Choi does not teach the claim limitations pertaining to the specific order of:
inlet -> second carbon block containing the specific composition -> first carbon block containing the specific composition -> outlet
because the first carbon block only contains activated carbon and has the purpose of removing chlorine and chloroform components and this purpose would be defeated if the other additives of ferric hydroxide, titanium oxide, and binder were incorporated. Furthermore, Liu does not cure the deficiencies because it pertains to only a layered activated carbon filter, but does not teach layers with the compositions of instant claim 1. Therefore, instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Page 15, Paragraph 3 to Page 18, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Choi teaches the inclusion of a heavy metal filter and an activated carbon filter. The heavy metal filter taught by Choi is an exemplary activated carbon filter which includes activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight. This filter will remove chlorine and chloroform because it includes a significant quantity of activated carbon. Therefore, the purpose of the filter is not defeated if a heavy metal filter were used as an activated carbon filter. Furthermore, Liu teaches the layering of carbon filters in one module such that the combination of Choi in view of Liu would arrive at the specific order of the limitation of: inlet -> second carbon block -> first carbon block excluding -> outlet. Therefore, instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 11, that Choi does not teach the claim limitations pertaining to the specific order of:
inlet -> anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric -> carbon block -> outlet
because Choi teaches that the membrane filter is downstream of the heavy metal removing filter and is around the activated carbon filter. Furthermore, Domb teaches an anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric, but does not teach a module consisting of a hollow tube shaped carbon block and the anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric being wrapped around the carbon block. Therefore instant claim 11 is allowable (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Page 18, Paragraph 4 to Page 22, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Choi teaches the inclusion of a heavy metal filter and an activated carbon filter with the activated carbon filter being surrounded by a membrane filter. The heavy metal filter taught by Choi is an exemplary activated carbon filter which includes activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight. This filter will remove chlorine and chloroform because it includes a significant quantity of activated carbon. Choi teaches the combination of a filter including only a membrane filter wrapped around the hollow carbon block filter. Domb specifically teaches an anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric combined with carbonaceous material, where the ion exchange material encounters the water first. As such, the combination of Choi and Domb would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter consisting only of an anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric wrapped around the heavy metal filter in a single filter module, as both prior art teach a two-component filter including a membrane and the specific carbon filter or the specific ion exchange filter and a carbon filter. Therefore, instant claim 11 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that claims 3 and 43-47 are allowable because they depend upon claims 1, 6, and 11 which are also allowable (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Page 22, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claims 1, 6, and 11 are not allowable, therefore, claims 3 and 43-47 are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claims 43 and 45-46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 43, “the first carbon block” in line 1 of the claim and “the second carbon block” in line 3 of the claim should read “the hollow first carbon block” and “the hollow second carbon block”.
In Claim 45, “the first carbon block” in line 1 of the claim and “the second carbon block” in line 4 of the claim should read “the hollow first carbon block” and “the hollow second carbon block”.
In Claim 46, “the first carbon block” in line 1 of the claim and “the second carbon block” in line 3 of the claim should read “the hollow first carbon block” and “the hollow second carbon block”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al US Patent Application No. 20190389740 A1 (hereinafter Choi) in view of Liu et al Chinese Patent Application No. CN 110668606 A (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a water purifier filter (i.e., a filter) and a water purifier (i.e., for a liquid purifier, the filter comprising)
with the filter module provided in a filter housing (i.e., a filter housing; a filter module provided in the filter housing and configured to) to purify water introduced through the inlet (i.e., including an inlet; purify liquid introduced through the inlet) and to supply water to the outlet (i.e., and an outlet; and to supply purified liquid to the outlet; Abstract)
where Choi shows the filter module (i.e., wherein the filter module includes; Fig. 3, #120)
in the shape of a hollow cylinder (i.e., a first filter member having a hollow tube shape; Fig. 3)
wherein the filter is constructed such that water flows through the inlet, then through the filter module and then through the outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid sequentially passes through the inlet, an outer surface of the second filter member, an inner surface of the second filter member, and the outlet; Fig. 4)
and the filter assembly (Fig. 6, #17) further includes an activated carbon filter (i.e., and a second filter member; Fig. 6, #300) and a membrane filter (i.e., Fig. 6, #200; Paragraph 0120) included in the same housing (Paragraph 0124).
Choi further teaches that the first filter (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 6, #100) comprises sodium orthotitanate (i.e., titanium oxide; Paragraph 0019), synthetic iron hydroxide (i.e., ferric hydroxide; Paragraph 0020), a binder (i.e., a binder; Paragraph 0021) and activated carbon (i.e., includes activated carbon; Paragraph 0023) and that the activated carbon filter (Fig. 6, #300) can be provided the same as the heavy metal removing filter (i.e., and the second filter member includes a hollow second carbon block, and each of the hollow first carbon block and the hollow second carbon block includes activated carbon, a binder, ferric hydroxide, and titanium oxide; Fig. 6, #100; Paragraph 0106). Choi further teaches that the first filter (Fig. 6, #100)
comprises sodium orthotitanate, synthetic iron hydroxide, and activated carbon (Paragraph 0103) and the filter assembly (Fig. 6, #17) further includes an activated carbon filter (i.e., wherein the first carbon block and the second carbon block have respective different composition ratios; Fig. 6, #300; Paragraph 0120).
Choi further teaches that the filter module (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 3, #120) has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (i.e., 10% to 57% by weight of the ferric hydroxide; 10% to 57% by weight of the titanium oxide; Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (i.e., includes 10% to 20% by weight of the activated carbon; Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (i.e., 13% to 23% by weight of the binder; Paragraph 0117).
Choi further teaches that the activated carbon filter (Fig. 6, #300) can be provided the same as the heavy metal removing filter (i.e., and the second carbon block; Fig. 6, #100; Paragraph 0122) and has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (i.e., 8% to 46% by weight of ferric hydroxide; 8% to 46% by weight of titanium oxide; Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (i.e., includes 23% to 33% by weight of activated carbon; Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (i.e., 13% to 23% by weight of a binder; Paragraph 0117).
Choi continues on to teach that the sodium orthotitanate removes heavy metals, explicitly cadmium, from water (Paragraph 0019), that the synthetic iron hydroxide removes heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, selenium, iron, chromium, aluminum, or copper from water (Paragraph 0020), and the activated carbon filter removes smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors (Paragraph 0005).
Choi does not teach a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member and wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet.
However, Liu teaches the layering of concentric activated carbon layers of a filter element with different compositions (i.e., a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member) where the additional layering configuration would create the flow path for liquid of inlet to second filter member, to first filter member, to outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet) for the purpose of creating a multiple purpose filter element core and reducing the space required by the filter element to facilitate replacement of filter elements (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0020, Machine Translation).
Liu is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the field of composite activated carbon filter elements (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the water purifier filter as taught by Choi with the multiple concentric layers as taught by Liu because the multiple layers would reduce the space that the filter takes up and facilitate replacement of the filter elements.
Choi in view of Liu does not explicitly teach that the hollow first carbon block includes 10% to 57% by weight of the ferric hydroxide, 10% to 57% by weight of the titanium oxide, and 13% to 23% by weight of the binder and that the hollow second carbon block includes 23% to 33% by weight of activated carbon, the 8% to 46% by weight of ferric hydroxide, 8% to 46% by weight of titanium oxide, and 13% to 23% by weight of the binder. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected compositions weights that correspond to the claimed ranges while experimenting with the ranges made obvious by Choi in view of Liu.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Liu does not explicitly teach the range of 10% to 20% by weight of the activated carbon, but teaches that the amount of activated carbon is a results effective variable concerned with the capture of smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors contained within the water to be treated. Where 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust the composition of activated carbon to be within the range of the instant application if the amount of smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors are expected to be lower in the water to be treated.
Regarding Claim 3, Liu further teaches in Fig. 1 that the outer diameter of an inside block is slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the next consecutively larger block of activated carbon such that the hollow cylindrical blocks nest within each other (i.e., wherein an inner surface of the hollow second carbon block contacts an outer surface of the hollow first carbon block; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego et al US Patent Application No. 20150291446 A1 (hereinafter Addiego).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi teaches a water purifier filter (i.e., a filter) and a water purifier (i.e., for a liquid purifier, the filter comprising)
with the filter module provided in a filter housing (i.e., a filter housing; a filter module provided in the filter housing and configured to) to purify water introduced through the inlet (i.e., including an inlet; purify liquid introduced through the inlet) and to supply water to the outlet (i.e., and an outlet; and to supply purified liquid to the outlet; Abstract)
where Choi shows the filter module (i.e., wherein the filter module includes; Fig. 3, #120)
in the shape of a hollow cylinder (i.e., a first filter member having a hollow tube shape; Fig. 3)
wherein the filter is constructed such that water flows through the inlet, then through the filter module and then through the outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid sequentially passes through the inlet, an outer surface of the second filter member, an inner surface of the second filter member, and the outlet; Fig. 4)
and the filter assembly (Fig. 6, #17) further includes an activated carbon filter (i.e., and a second filter member; Fig. 6, #300) and a membrane filter (i.e., Fig. 6, #200; Paragraph 0120) included in the same housing (Paragraph 0124).
Choi further teaches that the first filter (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 6, #100) comprises sodium orthotitanate (i.e., titanium oxide; Paragraph 0019), synthetic iron hydroxide (i.e., ferric hydroxide; Paragraph 0020), a binder (i.e., a binder; Paragraph 0021) and activated carbon (i.e., includes activated carbon; Paragraph 0023)
and that the activated carbon filter (Fig. 6, #300) can be provided the same as the heavy metal removing filter (i.e., and the second filter member includes a hollow second carbon block, and each of the hollow first carbon block and the hollow second carbon block includes activated carbon, a binder, ferric hydroxide, and titanium oxide; Fig. 6, #100; Paragraph 0106).
Choi further teaches that the first filter (Fig. 6, #100) comprises sodium orthotitanate, synthetic iron hydroxide, and activated carbon (Paragraph 0103) and the filter assembly (Fig. 6, #17) further includes an activated carbon filter (i.e., wherein the first carbon block and the second carbon block have respective different composition ratios; Fig. 6, #300; Paragraph 0120).
Choi further teaches that the filter module (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 3, #120) has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (i.e., 10% to 20% by weight of the ferric hydroxide; 32% to 42% by weight of the titanium oxide; Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (i.e., includes 25% to 35% by weight of the activated carbon; Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (i.e., 13% to 23% by weight of the binder; Paragraph 0117).
Choi further teaches that the activated carbon filter (Fig. 6, #300) can be provided the same as the heavy metal removing filter (i.e., and the second carbon block; Fig. 6, #100; Paragraph 0122) and has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (i.e., 1% to 10% by weight of the ferric hydroxide; 1% to 10% by weight of the titanium oxide; Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (i.e., includes 25% to 35% by weight of the activated carbon; Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (i.e., 13% to 23% by weight of the binder; Paragraph 0117).
Choi continues on to teach that the sodium orthotitanate removes heavy metals, explicitly cadmium, from water (Paragraph 0019), that the synthetic iron hydroxide removes heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, selenium, iron, chromium, aluminum, or copper from water (Paragraph 0020), and the activated carbon filter removes smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors (Paragraph 0005).
Choi does not teach a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member, wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet, and wherein the hollow second carbon block includes zero valent iron and the hollow first carbon block excludes the zero valent iron.
However, Liu teaches the layering of concentric activated carbon layers of a filter element with different compositions (i.e., a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member),
where the additional layering configuration would create the flow path for liquid of inlet to second filter member, to first filter member, to outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet),
and wherein the activated carbon layer (i.e., the hollow second carbon block; Fig. 1, #22) contains zero valent iron (i.e., wherein the second carbon block includes zero valent iron; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation) and the layer to the inside is a microporous activated carbon layer (i.e., the hollow first carbon block; Fig. 1, #23) and the art does not mention the presence of zero valent iron in this layer (i.e., the hollow first carbon block excludes the zero valent iron; Machine Translation),
for the purpose of creating a multiple purpose filter element core and reducing the space required by the filter element to facilitate replacement of filter elements (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0020, Machine Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the water purifier filter as taught by Choi with the multiple concentric layers as taught by Liu because the multiple layers would reduce the space that the filter takes up and facilitate replacement of the filter elements.
Choi in view of Liu does not teach wherein the hollow second carbon block includes 37% to 47% by weight of the zero valent iron.
However, Addiego teaches a carbon support (i.e., wherein the second carbon block) comprising transition metal-based nanoparticles (Paragraph 0020) where the transition metal-containing feedstock is reduced to zero-valent iron (i.e., includes zero valent iron; Paragraph 0041) and that the total feedstock mixture contains 15-40% by weight of the transition metal-containing feedstock (i.e., and includes 37% to 47% by weight of the zero valent iron; Paragraph 0034) because of the high reactivity of the zero-valent iron nanoparticles and the ability to degrade a wide variety of toxic pollutants in water (Paragraph 0002).
Addiego is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a carbon supported transition metal-based nanoparticles for treating water streams (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the water purifier filter made obvious by Choi in view of Liu with the zero-valent iron nanoparticles as taught by Addiego because the zero-valent iron nanoparticles would degrade a wide variety of toxic pollutants in water.
Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego does not explicitly teach that the hollow first carbon block includes 10% to 20% by weight of the ferric hydroxide, 25% to 35% by weight of the activated carbon, and 13% to 23% by weight of the binder and that the hollow second carbon block includes 1% to 10% by weight of the ferric hydroxide, 1% to 10% by weight of the titanium oxide, 25% to 35% by weight of the activated carbon, 13% to 23% by weight of the binder, and 37% to 47% by weight of the zero valent iron. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected compositions weights that correspond to the claimed ranges while experimenting with the ranges made obvious by Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego does not explicitly teach the range of 32% to 42% by weight of the titanium oxide, but teaches that the amount of sodium orthotitanate is a results effective variable concerned with the capture of cadmium contained within the water to be treated. Where 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust the composition of sodium orthotitanate to be within the range of the instant application if the amount of cadmium is expected to be higher in the water to be treated.
Regarding Claim 44, Liu further teaches in Fig. 1 that the outer diameter of an inside block is slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the next consecutively larger block of activated carbon such that the hollow cylindrical blocks nest within each other (i.e., wherein an inner surface of the hollow second carbon block contacts an outer surface of the hollow first carbon block; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 45, Choi further teaches an example filter of a mass of 95 g in total (i.e., wherein the hollow first carbon block has a weight of 80 g to 200g; wherein the hollow second carbon block has a weight of 60g to 190 g),
that the filter module (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 3, #120) has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (Paragraph 0117),
and that the activated carbon filter (Fig. 6, #300) can be provided the same as the heavy metal removing filter (i.e., and the second carbon block; Fig. 6, #100; Paragraph 0122).
Addiego further teaches a carbon support comprising transition metal-based nanoparticles (Paragraph 0020) where the transition metal-containing feedstock is reduced to zero-valent iron (Paragraph 0041) and that the total feedstock mixture contains 15-40% by weight of the transition metal-containing feedstock; Paragraph 0034) and that the carbon feedstock may be in the range of 15 to 40% by weight (Paragraph 0033).
Therefore, taking the already taught compositional ranges into account and a total weight of 95 g of the filters, the hollow first carbon block can comprise, 35% activated carbon, or 33.25 g (i.e., includes 20 g to 70 g of the activated carbon), 25% binder, or 23.75 g (i.e., 10 g to 46 g of the binder), 10% ferric hydroxide, or 9.5 g (i.e., 8 g to 40 g of the ferric hydroxide), and 30% sodium orthotitanate, or 28.5 g (i.e., and 26 g to 84 g of the titanium oxide)
and the hollow second block can comprise 20% activated carbon, or 19 g (i.e., includes 15 g to 67 g of the activated carbon), 20% binder, or 19 g (i.e., 8 g to 44 g of the binder), 10% ferric hydroxide, or 9.5 g (i.e., 1 g to 19 g of the ferric hydroxide), 10% sodium orthotitanate, or 9.5 g (i.e., and 1 g to 19 g of the titanium oxide), and 40% zero valent iron, or 38 g (i.e., 37 g to 47 g of the zero valent iron).
Claims 11 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Domb et al US Patent Application No. 20100176044 A1 (hereinafter Domb).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi teaches a water purifier filter (i.e., a filter) and a water purifier (i.e., for a liquid purifier, the filter comprising)
with the filter module provided in a filter housing (i.e., a filter housing; a filter module provided in the filter housing and configured to) to purify water introduced through the inlet (i.e., including an inlet; purify liquid introduced through the inlet) and to supply water to the outlet (i.e., and an outlet; and to supply purified liquid to the outlet; Abstract)
where Choi shows the filter module (Fig. 3, #120) in the shape of a hollow cylinder (i.e., a first filter member having a hollow tube shape; Fig. 3)
and the filter assembly (Fig. 6, #17) further includes an activated carbon filter (i.e., and a second filter member; Fig. 6, #300) and a membrane filter (i.e., including a second material different from the first material; Fig. 6, #200; Paragraph 0120) as the only filter materials included in the same housing (i.e., wherein the filter module consists of a first filter member that includes a hollow carbon block and a second filter member; Paragraph 0124),
wherein the filter is constructed such that water flows through the inlet, then through the filter module and then through the outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid sequentially passes through the inlet, an outer surface of the second filter member, an inner surface of the second filter member, and the outlet; Fig. 4).
Choi further teaches that the first filter (i.e., wherein the first carbon block; Fig. 6, #100) comprises sodium orthotitanate (i.e., titanium oxide; Paragraph 0019), synthetic iron hydroxide (i.e., ferric hydroxide; Paragraph 0020), a binder (i.e., a binder; Paragraph 0021) and activated carbon (i.e., includes activated carbon; Paragraph 0023).
Choi further teaches that the filter module (i.e., wherein the carbon block; Fig. 3, #120) has a mix of sodium orthotitanate and synthetic iron hydroxide in the range of 10% - 30% by weight (i.e., 14% to 24% by weight of the ferric hydroxide; 33% to 43% by weight of the titanium oxide; Paragraph 0110), activated carbon in the range of 33% - 53% by weight (i.e., includes 20% to 28% by weight of the activated carbon; Paragraph 0115), and binder in the range of 17%-37% by weight (i.e., 13% to 23% by weight of the binder; Paragraph 0117).
Choi continues on to teach that the sodium orthotitanate removes heavy metals, explicitly cadmium, from water (Paragraph 0019), that the synthetic iron hydroxide removes heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, selenium, iron, chromium, aluminum, or copper from water (Paragraph 0020), and the activated carbon filter removes smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors (Paragraph 0005).
Choi does not teach a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member, wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet, and the second filter member includes an anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric configured to surround an outside of the hollow carbon block.
However, Domb teaches that a filter medium comprises carbonaceous material and chitosan and an ion exchanger (Paragraph 0032) where the chitosan is in the form of a non-woven fabric (Paragraph 0040) and the ion exchanger is an anion exchange agent (i.e., the second filter member includes an anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric configured to surround an outside of the hollow carbon block; Paragraph 0046),
where the additional layering configuration would create the flow path for liquid of inlet to second filter member, to first filter member, to outlet (i.e., wherein the liquid passes sequentially through an inner surface of the second filter member, the outer surface of the first filter member, an inner surface of the first filter member, and the outlet),
for the purpose of the selective removal of ions such as iron, arsenic, and manganese (Paragraph 0052) with the components arranged in the desired configuration of fabric outside of the carbonaceous material (i.e., a second filter member provided outside the first filter member to surround an outer surface of the first filter member; Paragraphs 0073-0075).
Domb is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a filter medium for filtering aqueous solutions (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the water purifying filter as taught by Choi with the non-woven chitosan fabric containing anion exchange agent as taught by Domb because the non-woven chitosan fabric containing anion exchange agent would selectively remove ions such as iron, arsenic, and manganese.
Choi in view of Domb does not explicitly teach the 14% to 24% by weight of the ferric hydroxide, and 13% to 23% by weight of the binder. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected compositions weights that correspond to the claimed ranges while experimenting with the ranges made obvious by Choi in view of Domb.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Domb does not explicitly teach the range of 20% to 28% by weight of the activated carbon and 33% to 43% by weight of the titanium oxide, but teaches that the amount of activated carbon and sodium orthotitanate are results effective variables concerned with the capture of smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors and cadmium contained within the water to be treated. Where 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust the composition of activated carbon and sodium orthotitanate to be within the ranges of the instant application if the amount of smaller contaminants, residual chlorine, volatile organic compounds, or odor making factors are expected to be lower in the water to be treated and the amount of cadmium is expected to be higher in the water to be treated.
Regarding Claim 47, Domb further teaches that the filter medium is arranged in layers (Paragraph 0074) with a compartment including an ion exchanger and another including an ion exchanger and a carbonaceous material (i.e., wherein the second filter member includes multiple layers of the anion exchange resin nonwoven fabric; Paragraph 0075) demonstrating that there can be multiple ion exchanger layers in one filter medium.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carbon Block Technology, Carbon Block Buyer’s Guide, https://carbonblocktech.com/carbon-filter-buyer-guide/, accessed via Wayback Machine 16 JULY 2018 (hereinafter Carbon Block Technology).
Regarding Claim 43, Choi in view of Liu do not teach wherein the first carbon block has an outer diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, an inner diameter of 12 mm to 15 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm, and the second carbon block has an outer diameter of 48 mm to 57 mm, an inner diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm.
However, Carbon Block Technology teaches that carbon block filter cartridge are most commonly in the sizes of 2.5” wide by 9.75” long, or 63.5 mm wide by 248 mm long (Page 11, Paragraph 2) but that the critical finished filter dimensions are the outer and inner diameters of the cylinder and the length, which can be customized beyond the industry standard sizes to better serve a water filter manufacturer’s design objectives (Page 10, Paragraph 4 to Page 11, Paragraph 2) where the carbon block technology allows for a smaller form factor (Page 3, Paragraph 3) and the blocks are extruded and trimmed to size or molded and trimmed to size with different shapes being available depending upon the manufacturing method (Page 5).
Choi in view of Liu in view of Carbon Block Technology does not explicitly teach the range wherein the first carbon block has an outer diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, an inner diameter of 12 mm to 15 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm, and the second carbon block has an outer diameter of 48 mm to 57 mm, an inner diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm, but that the most common size for a carbon block is within the same order of magnitude of size in millimeters and that it is known to customize the carbon block sizes for different applications and that the manufacturing methods make this relatively simple to accomplish. Where 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust the size of the carbon block to be within the range of the instant application as is needed for the application of the user.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Carbon Block Technology.
Regarding Claim 46, Choi in view of Liu in view of Addiego do not teach wherein the first carbon block has an outer diameter of 35 mm to 45 mm, an inner diameter of 12 mm to 15 mm, and a length of 145 mm to 210 mm, and the second carbon block has an outer diameter of 45 mm to 55 mm, an inner diameter of 35 mm to 45 mm, and a length of 145 mm to 210 mm.
However, Carbon Block Technology teaches that carbon block filter cartridge are most commonly in the sizes of 2.5” wide by 9.75” long, or 63.5 mm wide by 248 mm long (Page 11, Paragraph 2) but that the critical finished filter dimensions are the outer and inner diameters of the cylinder and the length, which can be customized beyond the industry standard sizes to better serve a water filter manufacturer’s design objectives (Page 10, Paragraph 4 to Page 11, Paragraph 2) where the carbon block technology allows for a smaller form factor (Page 3, Paragraph 3) and the blocks are extruded and trimmed to size or molded and trimmed to size with different shapes being available depending upon the manufacturing method (Page 5).
Choi in view of Liu in view of Carbon Block Technology in view of Addiego does not explicitly teach the range wherein the first carbon block has an outer diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, an inner diameter of 12 mm to 15 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm, and the second carbon block has an outer diameter of 48 mm to 57 mm, an inner diameter of 35 mm to 48 mm, and a length of 148 mm to 210 mm, but that the most common size for a carbon block is within the same order of magnitude of size in millimeters and that it is known to customize the carbon block sizes for different applications and that the manufacturing methods make this relatively simple to accomplish. Where 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust the size of the carbon block to be within the range of the instant application as is needed for the application of the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights