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. 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 . Claim s 1 , 3 -5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0241323 of Manion in view of US 6,193,878 of Morse et al . As to claims 1 and 3, Manion teaches of a system comprising: a chamber configured to direct a flow of water ( Manion, [0021] – [0022] and Fig. 1 ) ; a turbidity sensor configured to detect a quantity of cells and/or microorganisms within the flow of water ( Manion, [0025] ); and an electric field generator configured to generate an electromagnetic field via a plurality of pulses, the electric field generator including a pair of electrodes within the chamber and a controller configured to modulate the electromagnetic field in response to the turbidity sensor, thus quantity of microorganisms in the water flow ( Manion, [0024] – [0025] ). Manion does not teach the sensor being in the chamber or the controller being specifically configured to initiate generation of the pulses in response to the sensor output. Morse teaches of a water treatment apparatus for supplying electromagnetic energy to a fluid flow within a chamber ( Morse, Abstract ). Morse additionally teaches the system include a turbidity sensor within the inlet flow passage such that an output of the sensor is fed to a controller to provide varying inputs to the treatment modes within the system ( Morse, col 4 lines 44-58 and Fig. 1 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Manion as per Morse so as to utilize the turbidity sensor within the inlet of the chamber to provide data about the water to be treated so that the controller can varying the process parameters according to treatments modes within the system. As to claim 4, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 1. Manion does not teach the sensor is disposed upstream of the electrodes. Morse teaches of a water treatment apparatus for supplying electromagnetic energy to a fluid flow within a chamber ( Morse, Abstract ). Morse teaches that prior to the treatment area of the system, sensors are disposed in the inlet portion of the system to obtain information about the fluid to be treated ( Morse, col 4 lines 44-58 and Fig. 1 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Manion as per Morse so as to place the sensor upstream of the electrodes (i.e. treatment zone) in order to provide information about the fluid to be treated so as to allow for desired inputs to be provided by the controller. As to claim 5, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 1. Manion and Morse do not specifically teach the sensor configuration, however, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Manion. As the system of Manion is not always flowing, the turbidity sensor would be configured to detect the turbidity (i .e. microorganism in the fluid) of the fluid when in use, thus at periodic time interval. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor for periodic detection in relation to the fluid flow therein in order to detect the quantity of microorganisms in the fluid being treated. As to claims 11 and 12, Manion teaches of a system comprising: a channel configured to direct a flow of water ( Manion, [0021] – [0022] and Fig. 1 ); a turbidity sensor configured to detect a quantity of cells and/or microorganisms within the flow of water ( Manion, [0025] ); and an electric field generator configured to generate an electromagnetic field via a plurality of pulses, the electric field generator including a pair of electrodes within the channel and a controller configured to modulate the electromagnetic field in response to the turbidity sensor, thus quantity of microorganisms in the water flow ( Manion, [0024] – [0025] ). Manion does not teach the controller being specifically configured to initiate generation of the pulses in response to the sensor output. Morse teaches of a water treatment apparatus for supplying electromagnetic energy to a fluid flow within a chamber ( Morse, Abstract ). Morse additionally teaches the system include a turbidity sensor within the inlet flow passage such that an output of the sensor is fed to a controller to provide varying inputs to the treatment modes within the system ( Morse, col 4 lines 44-58 and Fig. 1 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Manion as per Morse so as to utilize the turbidity sensor within the inlet of the chamber to provide data about the water to be treated so that the controller can varying the process parameters according to treatments modes within the system. As to claim 13, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 11. Manion does not teach the sensor is disposed upstream of the electrodes. Morse teaches of a water treatment apparatus for supplying electromagnetic energy to a fluid flow within a chamber ( Morse, Abstract ). Morse teaches that prior to the treatment area of the system, sensors are disposed in the inlet portion of the system to obtain information about the fluid to be treated ( Morse, col 4 lines 44-58 and Fig. 1 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Manion as per Morse so as to place the sensor upstream of the electrodes (i.e. treatment zone) in order to provide information about the fluid to be treated so as to allow for desired inputs to be provided by the controller. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manion in view of Morse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 112266120 of Xu et al . As to claim 2, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 1. Manion teaches the sensor is a turbidity sensor, but does not disclose the sensor is a camera ( Manion, [0025] ). Xu teaches of water sterilization system ( Xu, p. 1 lines 24-27 ). Xu additionally teaches the water turbidity information detection system includes a camera to detect water turbidity so that the system can be appropriately controlled in relation to the turbidity of the water ( Xu, p. 2 lines 12-19, p. 4 lines 25-31 and p. 11 lines 20-21 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manion as per Xu so as to utilize a camera as part of the turbidity information system in order facilitate water turbidity information so that the system can be controlled appropriately. Claims 6 - 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manion in view of Morse as applied to claim s 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US 2002/0170830 of Kondo et al . As to claims 6 -7 and 15 , Manion in view of Morse teach to the sy stem of claim 1 and 11 . Manion in view of Morse do not specifically teach valves within the system. Kondo teaches of a water treatment system for removing microbes from water ( Kondo, Abstract ). Kondo additionally teaches a water inlet and outlet such t hat the inlet and outlet have valves fluidically conne cted to control the water going through the chamber ( Kondo, [0028] – [0029], [0034] and Fig. 1 ). It is noted that valves control the flow of water through. Instances include on/off or reduced volume flow. Kon do further teaches a bypass conduit connected to the first and second valves to allow for fluid to be put through or around the treatment area ( Kondo, [0028] – [0029], [0034] and Fig. 1 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manion as per Kondo so as to utilize the valve and bypass configuration in order to control when the fluid passes through the treatment area and when it does not. Claim s 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manion in view of Morse as applied to claim s 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US 9,512,018 of Kolls et al . As to claim 10, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 1. Manion and Morse do not teach a communication interface. Kolls teaches of a n improved treatment system for inactivating microorganisms by high intensity electromagnetic pulse means ( Kolls , Abstract ). Kolls additionally teaches the system includes a user interface to control the system for generating the desired pulses within the chamber ( Kolls , col 28 line 41 thru col 29 line 13 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manion in view of Morse as per Kolls so as to utilize a user interface for communication to the controller for generating the desired pulse sequence within the system. As to claim 14, Manion in view of Morse teach to the system of claim 11. Manion in view of Morse do not teach a faucet connected to the channel. Kolls teaches of an improved treatment system for inactivating microorganisms by high intensity electromagnetic pulse means ( Kolls , Abstract ). Kolls teaches that after flow through the channel to provide the water to a faucet for distribution ( Kolls , col 29 line 34 thru col 30 line 11 and Fig. 13 ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manion in view of Morse as per Kolls so as to provide the fluid to a faucet for distribution after flow through the treatment channel in providing purified water from the system. Claim s 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0241323 of Manion in view of US 6,193,878 of Morse et al and US 2010/0181208 of Denison et al. As to claim 17, Denison teaches to a system comprising: a faucet ( Denison, [0132] - [0133] and Fig. 9 ); a first channel fluidically connected to the faucet ( Denison, [0132] - [0133] and Fig. 9 ); a second channel fluidically connected to the faucet ( Denison, [0132] - [0133] and Fig. 9 ); a first and a second sensor coupled to the first and second channels, respectively ( Denison, [0036 ) ; an electric field generator configured to generate an electromagnetic field via a plurality of pulsed, the electric field generator include a first electrode coupled to the first channel, a second electrode coupled to the second channel and a controller configured to initiate generation of electric pulses in the first and second channel based on fluid flow ( Denison, [0036], [0105] – [0108], [0118], [0133] and Fig. 9 ) . Denison does not teach the sensor detects a quantity of microorganisms in the channels. Denison also does not teach the electric field generator includes pairs of electrodes. Manion teaches of a water treatment system, including an electroporation system ( Manion, [0003] ), like that including as a component in Denison. Manion additionally teaches that the electroporation system comprises a pair of electrodes within the channel to kill any cells/organisms within the fluid flow such that the intensity, frequency shape, etc. can be controlled by a turbidity sensor in the fluid flow to disinfect the fluid ( Manion, [0022] – [0025] ). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Denison as per Manion so as to utilize a turbidity sensor in each channel in order to control the disinfection of the fluid by the system for use. As to claim 18, Denison in view of Manion teach to the system of claim 17. Denison teaches that each channel is configured for either hot or cold water use ( Denison, [0126], [0129] and [0134] ). As to claim 19, Denison in view of Manion teach to the system of claim 17. Denison in view of Manion does not teach a singular housing to contain all the components of the system, however, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Manion teaches that the system is used in a domestic appliance capacity ( Manion, [0041] ), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a device as a domestic appliance to be located in a domicile, i.e. a house or housing of a person, in order provide disinfected water for use. As to claim 20, Denison in view of Manion teach to the system of claim 17. Denison in view of Manion do not specifically teach the sensor configuration, however, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Manion. As the system of Manion is not always flowing, the turbidity sensor would be configured to detect the turbidity (i.e. microorganism in the fluid) of the fluid when in use, thus at periodic time interval. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor for periodic detection in relation to the fluid flow therein in order to detect the quantity of microorganisms in the fluid being treated. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8, 9, 16 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 8 and 16 recite the backflow channel in relation to the valve and bypass conduit. This structural embodiment in relation to the electrodes of the electric field generator is not obvious or anticipated by the art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7961 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9 am to 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Duane Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1166 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN W. COHEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 1759 /BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759