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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claims 10- 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The limitations “bulge” and “annular bulge” are interpreted as separate pieces.
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 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Machine Translation of CN111076332 by Daying et al. (Daying; English Translation is provided in IDS documents) in view of over English Machine Translation of CN111023536 by Dahao et al. (Dahao; English Translation is provided in IDS documents).
In regard to claim 1, Daying teaches a water softener (page 10, Summary of the Invention; Figure 1). Daying teaches a housing internally provided with a resin cavity and sequentially provided with a water inlet and a water outlet along a flowing direction of a water flow (page 10, Summary of the Invention: body, water inlet, water outlet, flow cavity suitable for placing the softening resin; Figure 1-2).
Daying does not teach a positioning column disposed on an end of the housing corresponding to the water inlet and extending toward a direction away from the housing. Daying does not teach a snap disposed on the top position of the housing; the snap comprising a horizontal part and a connecting part both made of flexible materials; or the end of the horizontal part provided with a bulge extending downward connected with a top position of the connecting part through the bulge.
Dahao teaches a water humidifier (page 16, Technical Field). Dahao teaches a housing with an inlet and an outlet (page 16, Summary of the invention). Dahao teaches a positioning column disposed on an end of the housing corresponding to the water inlet and extending toward a direction away from the housing (Figure 5, see annotation below).
Dahao teaches a snap disposed on a top position of the housing (Figure 5). Dahao teaches the snap comprises a horizontal part and a connecting part (Figure 5, see annotation below). Dahao teaches the connecting part and the horizontal part are both made of flexible materials (Figure 5, see annotation below). Dahao teaches an end of the horizontal part is provided with a bulge extending downward (Figure 2, see annotation below).
Dahao teaches the connecting part is disposed above the water inlet (Figure 5, Figure 2, see annotations below); the bulge protrudes from the end of the housing corresponding to the water inlet (Figure 5, see annotation below). Dahao teaches the horizontal part is connected with a top side of the connecting part through the bulge (Figure 5, see annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
802
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dahao does not explicitly teach teaches the bulge is disposed above the connecting part; since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the snap and positioning column, as taught by Dahao, in the apparatus of Daying as it is a known way to attach and secure water softening devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would be motivated to provide an attachment that is water tight and sealed.
In regard to claim 3, Dahao teaches an annular bulging part is disposed on a part of the housing corresponding to the water inlet (Figure 5, sealing rib 5). Dahao teaches the annular bulging part extends toward the direction away from the housing (Figure 5, sealing rib 5).
In regard to claim 4, Dahao teaches the water softener comprises a sealing ring (Figure 5, sealing ring 9 and valve body 3). Dahao teaches the sealing ring is disposed on the annular bulging part (Figure 5, sealing ring 9, valve body 3, and sealing rib 5).
In regard to claim 5, Dahao teaches an edge of the annular bulging part is provided with a stop flange which is configured to prevent the sealing ring from falling out (Figure 5, see annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
738
1011
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Dahao does not explicitly teach the water softener comprises a plurality of annular sealing edges and the plurality of annular sealing edges are disposed on an outer sidewall of the sealing ring. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claim 7, Daying teaches the water softener further comprises a holding part disposed on a position of the housing corresponding to the water outlet (page 10, Summary of Invention, cover plate).
In regard to claim 8, Daying teaches the holding part extends away from the housing in a shape of a plate (page 10, Summary of Invention, cover plate).
In regard to claim 9, Daying teaches a supporting bar is disposed under the housing (page 10, Summary of Invention, base).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the claim amendments.
The 112b rejection is removed in light of the claim amendments.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument the present invention ensures mounting stability of the water softener and better purifying effect; the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
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., mounting stability; better purifying effect) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In regard to the Applicant’s argument the snap structures of Dahao and Daying are internal structures for guiding humidification rather than being utilized for positioning purposes; Daying and Dahao does not suggest positioning problems or solutions; the current claims require the snap and positioning column are set externally; the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
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., positioning purposes; snap and positioning column are set externally) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
The snap and positioning column of Dahao and Daying meet the claimed limitations; the claims do not require fully external parts.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the horizontal and connecting part; the Examiner notes the rejection has been updated above in view of the claim amendments.
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 KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights