DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Election/Restrictions
In response to the amendment, all remaining claims having been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 10, line 4, “raw bypasses” has been replaced with “raw water bypasses”.
Claim 15, fourth line from the bottom of the claim, “filter and; and” should be filter; and”.
Claim 19, line 2, “control” should be “controls”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2009233591, hereinafter “591”.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, ‘591 teaches a water purifier 100 comprising:
a raw water flow path 5 into which raw water is introduced from an external water source;
a clean water flow path (the line including flow meters 14a, 14b, storage tank 18, and pump 19) connected to the raw water flow path and having a water discharge nozzle 20 disposed at an end thereof;
a filter device (40, 15) disposed in the clean water flow path, and to which a filter (e.g. 12, 13) is installable to filter the raw water;
a drain port (at the end of line 25);
a drain flow path (51) branched off from the clean water flow path, and having one end connected between the filter 15 and the water discharge nozzle 20 and another end connected to the drain port 25 to drain water in the clean water flow path to outside;
a drain valve 50 configured to open or close the drain flow path; and
a controller (the control unit including an MPU—microprocessor unit) configured to determine a remaining life of the filter installed in the filter device based on a point in time at which the filter has been replaced and control the drain valve 50 to perform a cleaning operation based on the determined remaining life of the filter. See the entire attached English Translation including:
“The pretreatment cartridge 40 and the membrane filtration cartridge 15 are replaced when their lifetimes are over. Life detection is performed when the pretreatment cartridge 40 measures the flow rate with the flow meter A (14a), and the membrane filtration cartridge 15 measures the flow rate with the flow meter B (14b). Further, the usage time of the cartridge may be set by a timer. The display means is preferably selected according to the environment such as LCD, LED and sound. For this reason, it is possible to avoid continuous use of the deteriorated cartridge.”
“If the valve on the input side and the filtrate water drain line 51 are opened and the valve on the antibacterial unit 70 side is closed, the filtered water passes through the filtrate water drain line 51 and the water purifier 100 system from the drain line A25. Discharged outside.
These controls are performed by a series of controls using storage means and MPU (not shown) installed in the water purifier 100.”
As for claim 2, ‘591 teaches a flow rate sensor 14b configured to detect a flow rate of water flowing in the clean water flow path, wherein, in response to determining that the flow rate in the clean water flow path is less than or equal to a predetermined value during a drainage reference time, the controller controls the drain valve to discharge stagnant water and perform the cleaning operation (e.g. when a new filter is installed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 that are applied 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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘591 in view of WO 99/18040, hereinafter ‘040.
‘591 teaches a display indicating filter life but doesn’t specify controller determining remain filter life is less or equal to a first set value to display a message to require filter replacement and when a second value is exceeded block a discharge of the clean water through the water discharge nozzle.
However, such is taught by ‘040. ‘040 teaches a controlling including display means to indicate filter needs replacement (the amber or first red light) and a second red light when a further value is exceeded that also prevents discharge of clean water by preventing operation of a lever (see page 17, first full paragraph and figure 11) [as in claims 15-16]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the display and indication/blocking means in the invention of ‘591 since ‘591 desires indication when the filter needs replacement and also for the benefit of preventing dispensing of unsanitary water.
As for claim 17, ‘591 teaches a filter water passage flow path 45 having one end connected to the filter 15 and the other end connected to the drain 25, wherein the filter water passage flow path includes a valve 23.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘591 in view of ‘040 and in further view of Manjikian (U.S. 3,849,305).
As for claim 18, the modified ‘591 doesn’t specify a controller that controls the filter water passage valve to repeat opening and closing of the filter water passage flow path in a predetermined cycle. But such is taught by Manjikian.
Manjikian teaches a timer 44 periodically opening/closing a filter water passage valve 42. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller of the modified ‘591 to repeat opening/closing the valve in a predetermined cycle, since Manjikian teaches the benefit of effective flushing of salts and foreign material from the reverse osmosis membrane filter (see the paragraph spanning columns 2 and 3).
As for claim 19, the controller stopping the valve cycling during membrane replacement would have been obvious to the skilled man since the unit would not be in operation and would be a waste of time and energy.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘591 in view of ‘040 and in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2013/0062219 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
PNG
media_image2.png
451
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 10, the modified ‘591 teaches a clean water valve (e.g. 50) which is disposed in the clean water flow path and configured to adjust an amount of the raw water introducing into the filter. But he doesn’t specify a sterilizing water flow path. However, such is taught by Lee. Lee teaches a sterilizing water flow path which includes one end connected to the raw water flow path 241 and another end connected to the clean water flow path between the filter 213 and the water discharge nozzle 279a so that the raw bypasses the filter; and a sterilizing water formation device 230 disposed in the sterilizing water flow path, and configured to treat the raw water and form sterilizing water; a sterilizing water valve 242 which is configured to open or close the sterilizing water flow path. As for claim 11, Lee also teaches a controller controls the sterilizing water formation device 230, the sterilizing water valve, the clean water valve, and the drain valve to perform a sterilizing operation in which the sterilizing water is formed and passes through the clean water flow path and the drain flow path (see figure 11 and paragraph 0180).
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sterilizing flow path of Lee in the invention of the modified ‘591, since Lee teaches the benefit of sterilizing flow paths including a storage tank which would further perfect the goal of ‘549 to prevent contamination therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest cited art—‘591-- fails to anticipate or render obvious, alone or in any proper combination, wherein the drainage reference time is proportional to the remaining life of the filter, and the controller adjusts the drainage reference time to decrease in response to decreasing in the remaining life of the filter (claim 3) nor wherein the controller determines a cycle for repeating the sterilizing operation to be proportional to the remaining life of the filter (claims 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779