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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 13-20, in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Group II, Claims 21-25 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Newly submitted claims 26-37 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the limitation “initiate a shipment of a replacement component in response to determining that the first component is degraded” in new independent Claim 26 is not included in the originally selected Group I, which does not require the particulars here from Group II, creating a combination-subcombination distinction, in which the particulars of the subcombination, Group II, are not required in the combination, Group I, and furthermore the limitation “determine a first value associated with a first component” in Claim 26 combined with “determine whether the post-filter cartridge is degraded” in dependent Claim 34 in Group II defines a different utility from that of Group I. The limitation also establishes a search burden, in a classification different from that of Group I.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-37 are also withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The current set of claims for examination constitute Claims 13-20.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it lacks a subject-verb structure, making it grammatically improper. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claim 13 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a water storage tank coupled to an output terminal of the water filtration system”, making it unclear if the “water storage tank” is part of the claimed water filtration system, or if it is considered outside of the water filtration system as a whole. Thus, it is indefinite as to what the scope of this limitation is.
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) 13, 16 & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeman et al., (“Beeman”, US 2004/0104157), in view of Souza, (US 5,817,231).
Regarding Claims 13, 16 & 18-20, Beeman discloses a water filtration system, (See Abstract), comprising: a plurality of cartridge receptacles for a plurality of cartridges, (Heads 13a-d and Casings for each of Filter Cartridges 25/29/31, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0024]), wherein a first cartridge receptacle of the plurality of cartridge receptacles is configured to receive a water filter cartridge, (One of Filter Cartridges 25/29/31, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0024]); a water storage tank coupled to an output terminal of the water filtration system, (Water Storage Tank 123 downstream of Heads/Cartridges 13a-d, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0043]); a pressure sensor coupled to the water storage tank and configured to determine a tank pressure of the water storage tank, (See paragraphs [0033] and/or [0045]); and a control circuit, (Control Unit 131, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0045], [0046]), where the control circuit is configured to determine the tank pressure of the water storage tank using measurements from the water storage tank, (Control Unit 131, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0045], [0046]).
Beeman does not explicitly disclose that the control circuit is configured to determine whether a first component is degraded based on the measurements from the water storage tank, wherein the first component comprises one of the plurality of cartridges or the water storage tank.
Souza discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine whether a first component is degraded based on the measurements from the water storage tank, wherein the first component comprises one of the plurality of cartridges or the water storage tank, (See column 4, lines 39-61, Souza).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water filtration system of Beeman by incorporating that the control circuit is configured to determine whether a first component is degraded based on the measurements from the water storage tank, wherein the first component comprises one of the plurality of cartridges or the water storage tank as in Souza so that “the control means continuously monitors the sensor inputs related to dispensing safe water”, (See column 9, lines 10-14, Souza), when “storing, and maintaining the purity of purified water for relatively long periods of time, and of dispensing stored water of high quality without the need to periodically dump the stored water to ensure this quality”, (See column 1, lines 37-42, Souza).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 16: The water filtration system of claim 13, further comprising a first TDS sensor coupled to an output of the water filter cartridge, (TDS probe 151 downstream of Filter Head 13c or 13d, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0050], Beeman), wherein the first component comprises the water filter cartridge, (Filter Head 13c has RO Unit 29, See Figures 1 & 5, See paragraph [0050], Beeman), and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a first TDS value associated with the output of the water filter cartridge, (See paragraph [0050], Beeman); compare the first TDS value with a TDS value threshold, (See paragraph [0050] & [0052], Beeman)); and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the first TDS value is lower than the TDS value threshold, (See paragraph [0050] & [0052], Beeman).
Claim 18: The water filtration system of claim 13, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the control circuit, the transceiver configured to transmit a notification related to degradation of the first component, (See paragraph [0051], Beeman; transceiver is computer issuing report to personnel).
Claim 19: The water filtration system of claim 18, wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with a remote server to initiate a replacement for the first component, (See paragraph [0051], Beeman; transmit information from control unit to central computer via Internet).
Claim 20: The water filtration system of claim 18, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the notification to a UE (user equipment), (See paragraph [0051], Beeman; computer is considered user equipment).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeman et al., (“Beeman”, US 2004/0104157), in view of Souza, (US 5,817,231), in further view of Tally et al., (“Tally”, US 2021/0024382).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Beeman discloses the water filtration system of claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the first component comprises the water storage tank, and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a first rate of change of tank pressure using the pressure sensor based on an output of a flow switch coupled to the water storage tank, (See paragraph [0045], Beeman; and See column 4, lines 39-61, Souza); compare the first rate of change of tank pressure with a reference rate of change of tank pressure, (See paragraph [0045], Beeman; and See column 4, lines 39-61, Souza);but does not disclose to determine that the water storage tank is degraded when the first rate of change of tank pressure is lower than the reference rate of change of tank pressure.
Tally discloses determining that the water storage tank is degraded when the first rate of change of tank pressure is lower than the reference rate of change of tank pressure, (See paragraphs [0106] & [0100], Tally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water filtration system of modified Beeman by incorporating determine that the water storage tank is degraded when the first rate of change of tank pressure is lower than the reference rate of change of tank pressure as in Tally in order to “flush the system…to remove undesirable solids such as scale, debris and other non-dissolved material present in the system,”, (See paragraph [0085], Tally), and “pump water from a storage tank to the system to facilitate transfer of permeate water to the system during the flushing process” and determine “if the storage tank is not pressurized sufficiently for the flow of permeate water”, (See paragraph [0106], Tally).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeman et al., (“Beeman”, US 2004/0104157), in view of Souza, (US 5,817,231), in further view of Wiseburgh et al., (“Wiseburgh”, US 6,319,414).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Beeman discloses the water filtration system of claim 13, wherein the first component comprises the water filter cartridge, and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a volume of water that has flowed through the water filter cartridge using the pressure sensor; compare the determined volume of water with a volume threshold; and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the volume of water is higher than the volume threshold.
Wiseburgh discloses wherein the first component comprises the water filter cartridge, (See column 10, lines 9-11, lines 24-25, Wiseburgh), and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a volume of water that has flowed through the water filter cartridge using the pressure sensor, (See column 9, lines 64-67, column 10, lines 1-3, Wiseburgh); compare the determined volume of water with a volume threshold, (See column 10, lines 2-6); and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the volume of water is higher than the volume threshold, (See column 10, lines 7-12, lines 23-25, Wiseburgh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water filtration system of modifed Beeman by incorporating wherein the first component comprises the water filter cartridge, and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a volume of water that has flowed through the water filter cartridge using the pressure sensor; compare the determined volume of water with a volume threshold; and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the volume of water is higher than the volume threshold as in Wiseburgh in order to detect “a situation of danger and the machine is disabled” until the ”filter has been changed”, (See column 10, lines 10-15, lines 23-25, Wiseburgh).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeman et al., (“Beeman”, US 2004/0104157), in view of Souza, (US 5,817,231), in further view of Singh, (US 2017/0129795).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Beeman discloses the water filtration system of claim 13, further comprising a first TDS sensor coupled to an output of the water filter cartridge, (TDS Probe 161 downstream of Filters with Heads 13c/d and upstream of Storage Tank 123, See Figure 1, and See paragraph [0050], Beeman), wherein the first component comprises the water filter cartridge, (One of Filters with Heads 13c/d, See Figure 1, and See paragraphs [0049] & [0050], Beeman).
Modified Beeman does not disclose a second TDS sensor coupled to an input of the water filter cartridge and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a TDS rejection rate based on the first and second TDS sensors; compare the TDS rejection rate with a TDS rejection rate threshold; and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the TDS rejection rate is lower than the TDS rejection rate threshold.
Singh discloses a second TDS sensor coupled to an input of the water filter cartridge, (TDS Sensor 18 upstream of RO Filter 36 as well as TDS Sensor 48 downstream of RO Filter 36, See Figure 1, See paragraph [0022], [0024], Singh), and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a TDS rejection rate based on the first and second TDS sensors, (See paragraph [0061] and [0054]); compare the TDS rejection rate with a TDS rejection rate threshold, (See paragraph [0066]); and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the TDS rejection rate is lower than the TDS rejection rate threshold, (See paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water filtration system of modified Beeman by incorporating a second TDS sensor coupled to an input of the water filter cartridge and wherein the control circuit is configured to: determine a TDS rejection rate based on the first and second TDS sensors; compare the TDS rejection rate with a TDS rejection rate threshold; and determine that the water filter cartridge is degraded when the TDS rejection rate is lower than the TDS rejection rate threshold as in Singh in order to provide “at least dual monitoring of [TDS] using a comparison measurement of input and output TDS probes to ensure the supply of uniformly tasting, safe drinking water irrespective of the feed water quality, which is generally difficult to produce from a RO system”, (See paragraph [0039], Singh).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights