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
Claims 6-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/04/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 08/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Independent elected claim 1 depends from withdrawn claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 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Claim 1 is directed to a method and depends from the withdrawn claim 6 that are directed to the apparatus.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
It is further noted that claim 1 depends from withdrawn claim 6 and creates multiple antecedent basis issues. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first filter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the filtered water" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the purification unit " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the purified water" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ultraviolet (UV) treatment reservoir" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the disinfected water" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second filter" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the filtered disinfected water" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mineral addition unit" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mineralized water" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the nanobubble generator" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the supersaturated water" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over sensorex.com (Understanding Water Purification Methods) in view of saniwater.com (6 Ways to Remineralize Your Water After Using Water Filters) and Ulatowski et al (Stability of nanobubbles generated in water using porous membrane system).
In regard to claim 1, sensorex.com discloses water purification and filtration. Sensorex.com discloses that water purification can be used for drinking water (page 2). Sensorex.com discloses “[t]he water purification process can be completed in seven steps, all of which are necessary to ensure that nearly every contaminant and mineral are removed from the water before reuse” (page 3). Sensorex.com discloses the following seven steps of water purification process:
1. Ion Exchange and Coagulation
2. Sedimentation
3. Filtration and Granular Activated Carbon
4. Disinfection by ultraviolet disinfection method
5. Carbon Filters
6. Reverse Osmosis
7. Store Purified Water
Therefore, sensorex.com meets the limitations of claim 1 regarding drawing water from a water supply; filtering the water through the first filter; purifying the filtered water, disinfecting the purified water and neutralizing remaining biocontaminants by ultraviolet (UV) treatment and filtering the disinfected water through the second filter to remove the neutralized remaining biocontaminants.
Sensorex.com does not disclose mineralizing the filtered disinfected water. Sensorex.com discloses minerals like calcium, magnesium, and potassium are essential nutrients and are removed during purification (page 10).
Saniwater.com discloses remineralization of water after purification:
Desalination Plant and Reverse Osmosis filters have proven very effective in removing bacteria (E. coli, Samonella), protozoa (Guardia, Cryptosporidium), and chemical inorganic contaminants such as sodium, chloride, lead, and fluoride from the water. However, some of the essential minerals such as calcium and magnesium can also get eliminated in the process. Desalinated water results in reduction of pH thus resulting in corrosion of water distribution network such as water main and service line. As per the World Health Organization (WHO), the presence of Calcium and Magnesium in drinking water and their potential contribution and benefits to human health are very relevant. Remineralization filter cartridges to treat water from desalinated plants or under-sink reverse osmosis systems has gained tremendous popularity providing remedial solution to issues caused by these processes.
This article discusses the different treatment techniques of remineralization that are available to provide enhanced quality water which is added with required nutrients for drinking and cooking purposes.
Hence, Saniwater.com discloses remineralization of water after purification in order to replenish the content of Calcium and Magnesium in drinking water that had been removed as a result of water purification, Saniwater.com discloses that calcium and magnesium in drinking and cooking water benefit to human health. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify sensorex.com in view of saniwater.com and remineralize purified and drinking water in order to restore the content of calcium, magnesium and other minerals that are essential for human health as suggested by saniwater.com. Sensorex.com recognizes the loss of minerals as a result of purification. Sensorex.com recognizes that such loss is detrimental for human health. Saniwater.com provides solution to this problem. Therefore to modify sensorex.com in view of saniwater.com would have been obvious.
Sensorex.com does not discloses supersaturating the mineralized water with nanobubbles. Ulatowski et al discloses teaches generating nanobubbles of oxygen and nitrogen in water (Abstract). Ulatowski et al discloses that “[o]xygen in the form of micro- and nanobubbles can mass produce hydroxyl radicals, that have high oxidation potential what leads to a destruction of various chemical pollutants” (1.2. Nanobubble applications). Ulatowski et al discloses that “[t]here are some microorganisms which are proven to be resistant to ozone atmosphere or treatment with bubbles of millimetre diameter, but are killed in contact with microbubbles [36]. It is assumed that the effect of nanobubbles would be even more efficient” (1.2. Nanobubble applications).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have bee motivated to modify the combination of sensorex.com and saniwater.com in view of Ulatowski et al and to supersaturate water with gas nanobubbles in order to further purify/disinfect water and to remove various chemical pollutants and microorganisms as suggested by Ulatowski et al.
In regard to claims 2 and 4, Ulatowski et al discloses teaches generating nanobubbles of oxygen and nitrogen in water (Abstract). In regard to claims 2 and 4, Ulatowski et al discloses nanobubble concentration of 6*1010 nanobubbles per dm3 (3.4. Theoretical approach to nanobubble stability).
The storage of water is a conventional step after water treatment has been performed.
In regard to the apparatus limitations in the process claim, it is noted that particular apparatus would not impart any patentable distinction to a process claims.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over sensorex.com (Understanding Water Purification Methods) in view of saniwater.com (6 Ways to Remineralize Your Water After Using Water Filters) and Ulatowski et al (Stability of nanobubbles generated in water using porous membrane system) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Safonov et al (Hydrogen nanobubbles in a water solution of dietary supplement).
In regard to claim 3, Ulatowski et al does not discloses nanobubbles of hydrogen. Safonov et al discloses:
Hydrogen, as revealed by basic and clinical research, is an important physiological regulatory factor producing antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic protective effects on cells and organs. We provide experimental evidence that a dietary supplement, designed to saturate water with hydrogen, produces long-lived hydrogen nanobubbles. Using gas chromatography, proton nuclear magnetic resonance and qualitative experiments, we demonstrate that a water solution of dissolved dietary supplement, creating negative redox potential, contains invisible hydrogen nano-bubbles, which remain in the solution for several hours (Graphical abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have ben motivated to modify the combination of sensorex.com, saniwater.com and Ulatowski et al and to further supersaturate water with nanobubbles of hydrogen in order to impart antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic protective effects. In regard to claim 3, Ulatowski et al discloses nanobubble concentration of 6*1010 nanobubbles per dm3 (3.4. Theoretical approach to nanobubble stability).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/VERA STULII/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791