DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 1-2, 4-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
The following terms lack antecedent basis: “the stored purification state” (claim 1).
The balance of the listed claims are also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
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 1-2, 4-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al. (U.S. 2018/0186655 A1), hereinafter “Cobb” in view of Wadsworth et al. (U.S. 5,976,362), hereinafter “Wadsworth”.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Cobb teaches a system configured to deliver water in different purification states (e.g. filtered water or unfiltered cold water), comprising:
a water purifier 20 configured to provide a purified water flow ;
a water valve selection unit (figure 5) comprising a first valve (the first of valves 26), a second valve (25), an exit portion (e.g. above the first of valves 26 of figure 5), wherein the water valve selection unit is configured to receive a purified water flow from the water purifier 20 via the first valve (the first of valves 26 shown in figure 5) and to receive an unpurified water flow from a water source via a second valve (25), wherein said water valve selection unit is further configured to direct a water flow comprising one of said purified water flow and said unpurified water flow through an exit portion 12b,
wherein the first valve 26 is configured to open when the second valve 25 is closed and to be closed when the second valve 25 is open;
a tap (faucet 1) configured to receive said water flow from said exit portion, and to deliver said water to a user, and
a control unit (40, 27, ECS) configured to control said water valve selection unit to regulate a purification state of said water flow, by closing and opening the first valve and the second valve upon a user input to said control unit, and
wherein the purification state corresponding to if the water has passed through the water purifier or not,
wherein said control unit is further configured to inform said user of said purification state of said water flow delivered by said tap [ when the display is activated…“thereby inform the user that filtered water was thereafter exiting from the faucet” 0053], and
upon an input deliver water of the stored purification state to the user (upon opening of the tap, Cobb teaches that the water from the last dispensing that is still in the flow line (stored) is first dispensed---thereafter, after a preset period of time, a display is activated indicating water from the last purification state has been purged [0053]) .
Cobb doesn’t teach wherein a measuring element is configured to measure a volume of purified water flow that passes the exit portion and wherein the water valve selection unit is configured to send a signal to the control unit when the volume exceeds a preset value, wherein the control unit is further configured to inform the user that the volume has exceeded the preset value.
However, such is taught by Wadsworth. Wadsworth teaches a measuring element (monitoring means) measuring volume of water flow that passes a filter exit portion and configured to send a signal to the control unit (processing means) that also informs the user when a predetermined volume has been exceeded (see the last section of claim 1 and also claim 14).
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 measuring element, signal, and informing means of Wadsworth in the invention of Cobb, since Wadsworth the benefit of determining when the filter has reached the end of its life (and would need replacement). See the abstract and the first paragraph under in the Summary of Invention section. It also would have been obvious since Cobb desires knowing the remaining useful life and need to replace his water filter [0053, last sentence].
As for claim 7, Cobb also teaches the corresponding method using the above system (see figs 2-4, 6, and paragraphs [0035-0039; 0048; 0053-0054].
As for claims 2 and 8, Cobb teaches control by Bluetooth® [0053].
As for claims 5 and 10, Cobb also teaches a regulation button to control the water valve selection unit to regulate a purification state of said water flow—e.g. touch capacitor type buttons [0051].
As for claim 4, Cobb also teaches a control unit with a rechargeable battery [0035] and LEDs [0057]. Though he doesn’t specify the control unit informing the user when the battery needs charging such is well-known in electronic devices that include rechargeable battery in order to inform when the battery needs to be charged (e.g. see U.S. 2015/251922, paragraph 0058 and 0079). In addition, the LEDs no longer lighting up would itself be an indication the battery should be replaced.
As for claim 6, Cobb doesn’t specify a preset volume of water flow based on a user input to the control unit to correspond to the volume of a water container. However, such would have been obvious since Cobb teaches a hands-free controlled autofill system wherein the system recognizes the container and dispenses a measured fill [0058, last two sentences] in order to not overfill the container.
As for claim 11, Cobb doesn’t specifically state that the end state information of the content of the water flow is stored upon closing the tap and delivering a second water flow of the end purification state upon input to the control unit (another dispensing opening the tap); however, such would have been obvious since Cobb teaches that after filtered water has been dispensed (with subsequent tap off), the display of the end state information continues for a period of time that corresponds to the time it takes for the filtered water to exit the faucet [0053, last sentence]—in order for the user to known what type of water is being dispensed upon selecting another dispensing type (re-opening the tap).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/19/2025 with respect to the claims have been considered but are unpersuasive for the following reasons:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies--i.e., (i) a control unit that stores the purification state of the last delivered water flow (ii) and a structure that allows dispensing of the water of the last purification state—without manually opening the faucet but by one-click functionality are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Concerning the combination with Wadsworth: 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). Also, Applicant’s argument that since Cobb measures time of flow and not volume, there is no reason to have the volume measuring of Wadsworth is not convincing since Cobb specifically states his flow sensor measures a volume (see claim 12 of the reference) and also teaches tracking water filter usage (which would be purified water, see [0057]) such that modifying with the volume measuring to determine filter life of Wadsworth would have been obvious.
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