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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 December 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/JP2021/033933, filed 09/15/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (JP2020-158748, filed 09/23/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 08 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claim 8 is withdrawn. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUI et al. (JP 2009165955 A) or, in the alternative, over YASUI in view of SOCKNICK et al. (US 2010/0301882 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUI et al. (JP 2009165955 A) or, in the alternative, over YASUI in view of SOCKNICK et al. (US 2010/0301882 A1), and further in view of MIERS et al. (EP 1110914 A2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUI et al. (JP 2009165955 A) or, in the alternative, over YASUI in view of SOCKNICK et al. (US 2010/0301882 A1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUI et al. (JP 2009165955 A, machine translation provided and referenced herein) or, in the alternative, over YASUI in view of SOCKNICK et al. (US 2010/0301882 A1), and further in view of MIERS et al. (EP 1110914 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, YASUI discloses a water softener device comprising a water softening means filled with a cation exchange resin and an electrolysis means that produces alkaline and acidic water for use in regenerating the cation exchange resin (pg. 2-3). As shown in FIG. 1, the device comprises an electrolysis unit 2 (i.e., an electrolytic cell that produces alkaline electrolyzed water and acidic electrolyzed water), an acidic water tank 3 for storing acidic water generated by the electrolysis unit 2, and a water softening means 5 filled with a cation exchange resin 4. Raw water is delivered via a water supply channel 1 and is shunted to the electrolysis means 2 via a supply path 6 and to the water softening means 5 via a supply channel 7; softened water exits the water softening means 5 via flow path 8 and mixed with alkaline water from the electrolysis unit 2 at mixing unit 9 (pg. 4, middle). YASUI further discloses a pH detecting means 29 in flow path 8; based on the measurements of the pH detecting means 29, a control means 31 controls the mixing amount of alkaline water to be added (pg. 5, middle). YASUI further discloses the cation exchange resin 4 is a weakly acidic cation exchange resin (i.e., using a weakly acidic cation exchange resin; pg. 6, top).
During operation, YASUI discloses the pH of the produced soft water is expectedly lowered by the cation exchange resin 4 and—after passing the pH detecting means 29—is mixed with alkaline water at mixing unit 9 to produce neutral soft water for use in device 10 (i.e., a pH adjustment tank that adjusts a pH of soft water produced in the water softening tank to a neutral range; pg. 6, middle). YASUI further discloses the water softener device performs a regeneration process for the cation exchange resin 4: the duration of the regeneration process (i.e., regeneration timing) is determined based on concentrations of hardness components and a measured water flow amount (pg. 6, middle); during the process, the control means 31 actuates valves such that acidic water from the acidic water tank 3 is supplied through circulation channel 12 and into the water softening means 5 to backwash and regenerate the cation exchange resin 5 (i.e., acidic electrolyzed water that is used for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin; a control unit that controls at least a flow of the acidic electrolyzed water produced by the electrolytic cell to the water softening tank; pg. 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YASUI further indicates that raw water contains hardness components, e.g., calcium and magnesium ions, are exchanged with sodium ions on the cation exchange resin to soften the raw water to an appropriate level for various uses (i.e., equipment 10). While YASUI is deficient in explicitly disclosing “a hardness detecting unit that detects a hardness of the raw water”, YASUI does indicate that the regeneration timing of the cation exchange resin is based on the concentration of hardness components in the water (pg. 6, middle), i.e., a hardness detecting unit is inherently required so that hardness can be measured in the raw water (i.e., at least one of… a hardness detecting unit that detects a hardness of the raw water).
Alternatively, YASUI is deficient in explicitly disclosing at least one of (1) a conductivity measurement unit S1 that measures conductivity of the raw water and a conductivity measurement unit S2 that measures conductivity of soft water that has been obtained by going through the water softening tank and the pH adjustment tank, or (2) a hardness detecting unit that detects a hardness of the raw water or a hardness storage unit that stores a hardness of the raw water measured in advance.
SOCKNICK discloses a method for operating a water softening system utilizing an ion exchange resin relying on measurements of conductivity of influent raw water and of admixed water to determine a water hardness and optimize a regeneration process of the ion exchange resin (abstract). SOCKNICK discloses determining the water hardness of the influent raw water (i.e., a hardness detecting unit that detects a hardness of the raw water; p0016) by relying on measuring conductivity via a conductivity sensor of raw water (i.e., a conductivity measurement unit S1 that measures conductivity of the raw water; p0054) and of the regenerating solution (i.e., a conductivity measurement unit S2 that measures conductivity of soft water that has been obtained by going through the water softening tank and the pH adjustment tank; Claim 8). Advantageously, such determination of influent raw water hardness enables a high degree of precision and cost-effectiveness in performing the regeneration of the ion exchange resin (p0012). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple conductivity measurement units as taught by SOCKNICK in the determination of a raw water hardness in the device disclosed by YASUI.
YASUI or modified YASUI is deficient in disclosing the pH adjustment tank includes a weakly basic anion exchange resin.
MIERS discloses a water treatment apparatus for the dealkalization of water (abstract). The apparatus treats water using a weak acid cation ion exchange resin followed by subjecting the treated water to pH adjustment to advantageously minimize equipment corrosion due to low pH (p0001; p0034). Briefly, the apparatus comprises a water treatment vessel 2 with the weak cation exchange resin 11 and a pH adjustment vessel 3 (FIG. 1; p0018; p0021). The pH adjustment vessel 3 adjusts the pH of the treated water to a range of 4.5 to 9.5 utilizing a weak base anion exchange resin (p0023); Example 3 further shows a more “neutral range” of 6.09 to 8.59 after weak basic anion exchange resin treatment (Example 3, Table 4). Advantageously, although a number of methods are known for pH adjustment, using a weak base anion exchange avoids a pressure drop encountered via degasification techniques and safety and handling issues associated with neutralizing chemicals (p0033). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a weak basic anion exchange resin in a pH adjustment vessel as taught by MIERS for the water softening device made obvious by YASUI or modified YASUI.
Furthermore, the limitations “that softens raw water including a hardness component”, “that adjusts a pH of soft water produced in the water softening tank to a neutral range”, “that produces alkaline electrolyzed water and acidic electrolyzed water that is used for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin”, “that measures conductivity of the raw water”, “that measures conductivity of soft water that has been obtained by going through the water softening tank and the pH adjustment tank”, “that detects a hardness of the raw water”, “that stores a hardness of the raw water measured in advance”, “that detects an accumulated water flow amount of the raw water going through the water softening tank in a predetermined period of time”, “that controls at least a flow of the acidic electrolyzed water produced by the electrolytic cell to the water softening tank”, and “calculates a regeneration time” are all directed toward intended uses of the respective recited limitations. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). The prior art discloses or makes obvious all claimed structures and functionality thereof; these cited intended uses are capably performed by the disclosed structures and are therefore disclosed or obvious over the prior art.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, modified YASUI makes obvious the water softening device of Claim 1. The instantly recited limitations are directed toward intended uses of the claimed device and toward manners or methods by which the claimed device is used. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). These recited limitations are directed toward how the control unit calculates (1) a change amount in the hardness component before and after treatment based on measured conductivity values and (2) a regeneration time based on the calculated hardness change amount, whereby the regeneration time is based on a recited Equation 1. As noted earlier, YASUI further discloses the water softener device performs a regeneration process for the cation exchange resin 4: the duration of the regeneration process (i.e., regeneration timing) is determined based on concentrations of hardness components and a measured water flow amount (pg. 6, middle); during the process, the control means 31 actuates valves such that acidic water from the acidic water tank 3 is supplied through circulation channel 12 and into the water softening means 5 to backwash and regenerate the cation exchange resin 5 (pg. 6-7). Although not explicitly disclosed, such recited limitations are necessarily obvious or anticipated by the prior art because YASUI discloses a control means that relies on measured hardness to determine a regeneration time for the cation exchange resins. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II).
Regarding Claim 4, modified YASUI makes obvious the water softening device of Claim 1. YASUI further discloses switching valve 28 that connects mixing part 9 with alkaline water generated from the electrolysis means 2 via cathode chamber outlet 22 and acidic water obtained from anode chamber 14 of the electrolysis means 2 stored in acidic water tank 3 (pg. 5, middle-bottom). YASUI further discloses that the acidic water used in regenerating the cation exchange resin 4 is advantageously recovered and reused by supplying the spent acidic water to the cathode chamber 15 of the electrolysis means 2 (i.e., a mixing tank that mixes alkaline electrolyzed water produced in the electrolytic cell with acidic electrolyzed water that has been used for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin; pg. 7, middle).
The limitations “that mixes alkaline electrolyzed water produced in the electrolytic cell with acidic electrolyzed water that has been used for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin” and “performs control in such a manner that mixed water produced by mixing the alkaline electrolyzed water with the acidic electrolyzed water in the mixing tank is supplied to the electrolytic cell while the weakly acidic cation exchange resin is regenerated” are directed to intended uses of the claimed device and toward manners or methods by which the claimed device is used. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 6, modified YASUI makes obvious the water softening device of Claim 1. The instantly recited limitation “the control unit performs control in such a manner that, while the weakly acidic cation exchange resin is regenerated, alkaline electrolyzed water produced in the electrolytic cell is supplied to the pH adjustment tank and the weakly basic anion exchange resin is regenerated” is directed toward an intended result from the practice or use of the control unit and device. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Even further, the instant limitation is directed to a manner or method by which the device is used. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUI et al. (JP 2009165955 A) or, in the alternative, over YASUI in view of SOCKNICK et al. (US 2010/0301882 A1), and further in view of MIERS et al. (EP 1110914 A2), as applied to Claim 1 above, and even further in view of CHAN et al. (US 2006/0216217 A).
Regarding Claim 7, modified YASUI makes obvious the water softening device of Claim 1. The prior art is deficient in explicitly disclosing a display unit that displays a comparison of the hardness of the raw water calculated based on the conductivity of the raw water measured by the conductivity measurement unit S1 and the hardness of the soft water calculated based on the conductivity of the soft water measured by the conductivity measurement unit S2.
CHAN discloses a washing system that utilizes cleaning agents and water (p0002). Briefly, the system includes a control system with a processing unit and a user interface comprising a display device (p0029) and further includes a conductivity sensor module that controls/monitors a conductivity sensor in the system (p0035), a hardness calculation module that determines hard water ion concentrations based on conductivity measurements (p0036), and a comparison module that compares changes in hardness in the water (p0037). CHAN further discloses FIGs. 4A and 4B showing graphical conductivity measurements of water samples before and after treatment. Although the prior art is deficient in explicitly disclosing that the display device shows a comparison of hardness in raw water and in soft water, such a recited limitation is considered an intended use of the claimed display unit. CHAN explicitly discloses conductivity measurements of raw and treated waters, the calculations of respective water hardness, and a comparison of the hardness before and after treatment. Even further, CHAN discloses treatment graphs where the effects of treating raw water on hardness is shown. Thus, such an instantly recited limitation would have been inherently anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the disclosure of CHAN. “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” (Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP §2112 II). CHAN further discloses that the need to monitor and control the hardness of the water advantageously helps in the effective removal of hard water ions (p0003; p0006). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a display unit as claimed as taught by CHAN for the water softening device made obvious by modified YASUI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights