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 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.
Claims 2-10 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 2, the meaning of “first chamber and a second chamber independent of each other” is unclear (does such terminology refer to the tank chambers being separate?).
In claim 3, it is unclear whether the functional phrase “and the raw water sequentially flows…” is positively reciting system structure or structural features (recitation of “and the layers are arranged such that raw water sequentially flows…” is suggested).
In claim 5, it is unclear whether the functional phrase “and the lid body is used to open and close…” is positively reciting system structure or structural features (recitation of “and the lid body is constructed or (configured) to open and close …” is suggested); and,
“…valve is further provided on a waste water path…is ambiguous, since the structural relationship or nexus between such path and other system components, particularly the “waste water outlet of the RO membrane filter element and raw water tank is unclear.
Claim 9 is ambiguous or vague as to what is meant by “pump is started” and by “operation and water discharge of the …system” (do these phrases merely refer to on/off status of the pump or also to open/close status of the switch and solenoid valve?).
In claim 10, recitations of “at least one microcontroller unit” (singular or plural) and “the MCU” (singular) are inconsistent, and structural and functional relationship, or nexus, of the recited “assembly and other components of the system is unclear; and,
“any one or a combination of two of…5G module” is grammatically confusing (“any one of or a combination of two of…” is suggested).
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0355245 (Spiegel) in view of Konishi et al PGPUBS Document US 2013/0334124 (Konishi). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified by “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Spiegel discloses a countertop water dispensing system [0003, 0016 and 0031 regarding “countertop reverse osmosis water filtration system”], comprising:
a base [0017 and 0032 “support base 102”], ;
a raw water tank detachably arranged on the base and configured to store raw water, wherein the raw water tank comprises a water outlet and a water inlet ([0032 re “first receptacle 104 configured to store source water therein, detachably supported on base 102], figure 1 and [0032] depict the reservoir as a rigid, approximately cylindrical structure with rigid sides and bottom and a top lid, hence inherently a “tank”) ;
a water purification tank detachably arranged on the base and configured to store purified water, wherein the water purification tank comprises a water outlet and a water inlet ([0035 re “second receptacle 134 configured to store supply water, or filtered drinking water therein, detachably supported on base 102], figure 1 and [0035] depict this reservoir as also a rigid, approximately cylindrical structure with rigid sides and bottom and a top lid, hence inherently a “tank”);
a filter system provided between the raw water tank and the water purification tank (figure 1 and [0036] regarding filter system 102 between the receptacles or “tanks”),
wherein the filter system is formed by connecting a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane filter element and an activated carbon fiber filter element in series ([0038, 0037-0042] regarding 1st filter 164, 2nd filter 168 and 3rd filter 166 in upstream to downstream, hence “series” configuration, with each of the 1st and 3rd filters 16 4 and 168 optionally being a carbon, i.e. inherently an activated carbon fiber filter, in series with 2nd reverse osmosis membrane filter 166),
a water inlet of the RO membrane composite filter element is communicated with the water outlet of the raw water tank (figures 1 and 4 and [0040-0042 and 0053 re 2nd filter 166 receiving about 100% of the water entering the 1st filter], and [0036-0037 re the filter system as a whole being in turn fluidly communicated to receive water from 1st receptacle or tank 104 through an inlet port 158]) ,
a first-stage purification water outlet of the RO membrane filter element is communicated with a water inlet of the activated carbon fiber filter element (figure 4 and [0041] re about 1-30% of the water which enters the 2nd filter 166 being passed on to the 3rd filter 168),
a waste water outlet of the RO membrane filter element is communicated with the raw water tank (figure 4 regarding line 70 and [0042 and 0053 re 1st outlet port 160 communicating the “2nd filtered water being returned to the 1st receptacle or tank 104]),
a water outlet of the activated carbon fiber filter element is communicated with the water inlet of the water purification tank (figures 1 and 4 and [0043] regarding fluid communication of 2nd outlet port 162 of the filter system 154, including 3rd carbon filter 168, and inlet port of 2nd receptacle or tank 134), and
a pump is provided on a pipeline communicating the water inlet of the RO membrane composite filter element and the water outlet of the raw water tank [0044 re pump 180 between outlet port of 1st receptacle 104 and inlet port 158 of the filter system 154].
Claim 1 differs from Spiegel by requiring that the reverse osmosis membrane filter is a composite filter element.
Konishi teaches such a composite reverse osmosis membrane filter [0019 and 0024 re “composite reverse osmosis membranes…skin layer…support…porous membrane”] utilized in a module or pressurized container 7 [0017], for providing ultra-pure, purified water [0002].
Konishi locates such composite membrane filter being located in a pressurized container, and thus accordingly constructed to be pressure and damage-resistant ([0018 and 0021 re “pressure container 7”] and [0029 re additives for “strength improvement]). Konishi also teaches in [0023, 0024 and 0026] the composite construction as facilitating flow therethrough of both raw and permeate liquid and being highly permeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have utilized a composite type reverse osmosis membrane filter as the Spiegel disclosed reverse osmosis filter element disclosed by Spiegel, as taught by Konishi, in in order to make the membrane filter to be pressure and damage-resistant, and for facilitating flow therethrough of both raw and permeate liquid.
For claim 3, Konishi teaches the further limitations of wherein the RO membrane composite filter element comprises a central tube and a filter membrane layer wound on the central tube (see [0020 re central tube 21] and see figure 2 and [0023 re wound filter membrane layer 24 or 23 thereupon]), and teaches,
the filter membrane layer is formed by stacking a carbon fiber layer, an isolation layer, and a RO membrane layer in sequence such that the raw water sequentially flows through the carbon fiber layer, the isolation layer, and the RO membrane layer to obtain first-stage purification water, which is directed to the central tube (see [0023 re layers 23, 24 and 25], if necessary [0021 re sealing member 41], and [0027-0029 re the filter layers including sealing member 41 and which may include internal coupling member 5a having axial and plate portions 51 and 53 which may include carbon fibers]).
For claim 4, Konishi also teaches wherein the isolation layer of a reverse osmosis filter membrane is made of one or more of a non-woven fabric, PE, or PP [0024 re layers of separation membrane 23 including a support of non-woven fabric] and [0030] re sealing member features.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0355245 (Spiegel) in view of Konishi et al PGPUBS Document US 2013/0334124 (Konishi), as applied to claims 1, 3 and 4 above, and further in view of Kuepper patent 6,103,125. Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified by “[ ]” symbols
Claim 2 differs by requiring: wherein a cavity of the raw water tank is divided into a first chamber and a second chamber independent of each other, the first chamber is configured to store the raw water, and the second chamber is configured to store waste water,
the water outlet and the water inlet of the raw water tank are disposed in the first chamber,
a waste water inlet of the raw water tank is disposed in the second chamber, and
the waste water outlet of the RO membrane composite filter element is communicated with the waste water inlet of the raw water tank.
For claim 2, Kuepper teaches in a water treatment and dispensing system configured for home utilization (column 4, lines 2-7) , wherein a cavity of a raw water tank 1 is divided into a first interior chamber 44 and a second exterior chamber 46 independent of each other, the first chamber is configured to store the raw water, and the second chamber is configured to store waste water (figure 5 and 6 embodiment regarding recirculation water tank 500, and as discussed at column 9, line 54-column 10, line 1) and ,
the water outlet and the water inlet of the raw water tank are disposed in the first chamber, and
a waste water inlet of the raw water tank is disposed in the second chamber, and
the waste water outlet of an RO membrane filter element is communicated with the waste water inlet of the raw water tank (all as best illustrated in figure 5 and discussed at column 7, lines 12-28 and column 9, line 54-column 10, line 1) .
Kuepper teaches that such arrangement enhances the compactness of the system and enables adequate room for recirculated water (column 9, line 64-column 10, line 17).
It would have thus been accordingly obvious to have modified the raw water tank of Spiegel to incorporate such features of separate chambers and having inlets and outlets arranged in the chambers as instantly claimed, as taught by Kuepper, to facilitate the compactness of the system and enable adequate room for recirculated water
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the raw water tank further comprises a lid body, and the lid body is used to open and close a top of the raw water tank; and,
a waste water solenoid valve is further provided on a waste water path to control a backflow amount of the waste water and further reciting:
the water purification tank further comprises a control valve, the control valve provides one inlet and two outlets.
Spiegel further discloses such openable and closeable tank lid body, and waste water control restrictor or valve to control a backflow amount of the waste water, with the recited solenoid valve deemed a conventional feature of water treatment systems having controllable fluid recirculation or recycling waste water backflow.
However, Spiegel lacks the feature of the water purification tank further comprises a control valve, the control valve provides one inlet and two outlets. None of the other cited prior art suggest such feature in a water treatment system adaptable as a home-filtration or counter-top filtration system.
Claims 9 and 10 would be distinguished and non-obvious in view of their dependence on claims 8 and 6 which are deemed allowable and non-obvious for reasons detailed below.
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of recitation of the system as further comprising a front panel assembly, wherein the base comprises:
a raw water tank base,
a pump assembly seat, and
a water purification tank assembly seat,
the front panel assembly and the base form a housing of the countertop water dispensing system,
the filter system is disposed in the housing, the front panel assembly is provided with a water outlet nozzle, and
the water outlet nozzle is communicated with the water outlet of the water purification tank.
Spiegel further discloses or teaches such tank base, pump and water purification tank assembly seats and various panels for control and accessibility of the system.
However, neither Spiegel or any other of the cited prior art suggests the feature of the front panel assembly and the base forming a housing of the countertop water dispensing system,
the filter system being disposed in the housing, the front panel assembly is provided with a water outlet nozzle, and
the water outlet nozzle being communicated with the water outlet of the water purification tank.
Claims 7 and 8 would also distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of their dependence on allowable claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited regarding water purification systems adapted for countertop or in other limited spaces for household use incorporating combinations of varied water filtration and other purification units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Magali Slawski, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-270-3960.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
10/31/2025
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773