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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “the first filtering technology is not adapted to remove or exchange minerals”. The Response, dated February 26, 2026, states that support is found in paragraph 0085 of the published US patent application, US 20230391638. The Examiner is unable to locate the support for this negative limitation feature in the original disclosure.
Paragraph 0085 discloses that the “beverage system 1 may operable in at least a first filtration mode, in which (only) the first filtering technology filters the liquid for the beverage to be prepared (such as a cold beverage, e.g. with the original mineral content), a second filtration mode, in which (only) the second filtering technology filters the liquid for the beverage to be prepared (such as a hot beverage, e.g. with a low mineral content, i.e. a reduced liquid hardness, in order to avoid scale and technical problems) and, preferably, in a third filtration mode, in which both the first filtering technology and the second filtering technology filter the liquid for the beverage to be prepared” (It is noted that this disclosure would support newly added claim 16).
The Examiner respectfully request that, if Applicant believes that there is support for this amendment in the original disclosure, Applicants provide the Examiner with the exact page with line and/or paragraph; figure with reference number(s) and/or the original claim number that supports the claimed negative limitation.
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 16 is 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 16 recites “the first and second outlets enable selectively filtering liquid from the liquid source using the first filtering technology or the second filtering technology or both simultaneously”. Claim 16 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how an outlet can select the filtering of a liquid in the claimed filtering unit. That is, it is unclear what element or device or structural feature of the claimed “first outlet” and the claimed “second outlet”, together, can achieve the function of enabling selectively the filtering of a liquid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Rejection based on US 545
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as anticipated by US 2016/0136545 (hereinafter US 545) (US 545 was filed on June 20, 2014 and was published on May 19, 2016. US 545 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).).
Regarding claim 1, US 545 discloses a filtering unit (see US 545, purification cartridge, figures 1, 2, 5, 8, 1S, 4S, 8S, 1T and paragraphs 0019, 0023, 0041, & 0065).
US 545 discloses a first cavity with a first filtering technology for filtering a liquid, the first cavity comprising a first inlet and a first outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit, a second cavity with a second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology, for filtering a liquid, the second cavity comprising a second inlet and with a second outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the second filtering technology from the filtering unit (see US 545 first unit (10A) or second unit (10B) of the purification cartridge, figures 1, 2-8, 1S, 4S, 8S, 1T and paragraphs 0025, 0117, 0120, 0144, 0158, 0181-0182, 0201, 0265).
US 545 discloses a purification cartridge composing a plurality of single filter cartridges, each comprising a filtering medium (see US 545 abstract, paragraphs 0019-0021, 0041, 0065). US 545 discloses examples of the purification cartridge comprising a first unit (10A) and second unit (10B) (see US 545 figures 1, 2-8, 1S, 4S, 8S, 1T). The claimed “first cavity with a first filtering technology for filtering a liquid, the first cavity comprising a first inlet and a first outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit” limitation is deemed to be disclose by either of the first unit (10A) or second unit (10B) of the purification cartridge of US 545. The claimed “second cavity with a second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology, for filtering a liquid, the second cavity comprising a second inlet and with a second outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the second filtering technology from the filtering unit” limitation is deemed to be disclose by the other unit, i.e. first unit (10A) or second unit (10B), of the purification cartridge of US 545.
US 545 discloses that each of the single cartridges stores a filter medium and a benefit of the claimed purification cartridge is that “even when the filter medium having a different life time is used, it is possible to suppress degradation in utilization efficiency of the filter medium by maximally exhibiting the water purification performance of the filter medium and hence to decrease the running cost of the cartridge” (see US 545 paragraph 0025) and that “it is possible to easily and separately replace or clean the filter medium having a different life time and hence to efficiently perform the attachment and detachment operation” (see US 545 paragraph 0045). Since the first single cartridge and the second single cartridge contain filter mediums with differing life time, each cartridge must contain different filtering mediums. Thus, the first filter medium of the first single cartridge and the second filter medium of the second single cartridge is deemed to disclose the claimed “first filtering technology for filtering a liquid” limitation and the “second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology, for filtering a liquid” limitation.
US 545 discloses liquid flows into the first single cartridge (see US 545 raw water inlet), is treated, flows out of the first single cartridge into the second single cartridge (see US 545 filter medium, penetration hole/partition wall, female passage/male passage tube paragraph; paragraphs 0149-0150) and eventually flows out of the cartridge (see US 545 outlet paragraphs 0015, 0150). When the liquid flows from the first single cartridge into the second single cartridge, it is then further treated and then flows out of the second single cartridge out and eventually flows out of the cartridge (see US 545 purified water outlet; see US 545 also figures 1, 8, 1S, 8S, 1T paragraphs 0125, 0127, 0150, 0181-0185, 0195-0199, 0207), which is deemed the first cavity comprising a first inlet and a first outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit and the second cavity comprising a second inlet and a second outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the second filtering technology from the filtering unit.
Thus, the first outlet is understood to be a combination of elements, wherein treated water flows out of the first single cartridge, into the second single cartridge and eventually out of the outlet of the device, whereas the second outlet is understood to be a singular outlet, wherein treated water flow out the purified water outlet (see US 545 figures 1, 8, 1S, 8S, 1T elements (2a/18) (T243/T15) (S15/S15a)).
Further, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
Regarding claim 2, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the first filtering technology is adapted to filter, impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and/or substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, and/or chlorine. As noted above, claim 2 is deemed indefinite. Claim 2 is understood as “the first filtering technology is adapted to filter, impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and/or substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, and/or chlorine.
US 545 discloses the first filtering technology is adapted to filter, impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and/or substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, and/or chlorine (see US 545 paragraph 0145, 0149). As discussed in rejection of claim 1, either the first single cartridge or the second single cartridge is deemed to disclose the claimed first filtering technology limitation.
Regarding claim 3, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the first cavity comprises an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).
Regarding claim 4, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the second filtering technology is adapted to filter impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and/or substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, wherein the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange heavy metals in the liquid (see US 545 paragraph 0145, 0149). As discussed in rejection of claim 1, either the first single cartridge or the second single cartridge is deemed to disclose the claimed second filtering technology limitation.
Regarding claim 5, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange minerals in order to reduce the liquid hardness (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).
US 545 discloses ion exchange resin (cation exchange resin and anion exchange resin) and ion exchange fiber, which are capable of removing and/or exchanging minerals in order to reduce hardness.
Regarding claim 7, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the first cavity comprises a first filtering structure extending along a first length and for providing the first filtering technology, and wherein the second cavity comprises a second filtering structure extending along a second length and for providing the second filtering technology (see rejection of claim 1).
US 545 discloses the first length is greater than the second length, or wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see US 545 figures 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 1S, 6S, 7S, 3T, 7T).
Regarding claim 8, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the cavities are integrated in the same unit is such a way that the filtering unit can be connected to and/or at least partially arranged in a same liquid source so that liquid from the same liquid source can be fed to the cavities through the first and second inlets in order to be filtered (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 8.
As noted above, claim 16 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 is understood as the first and second outlets allow filtered liquid using the first filtering technology or the second filtering technology or both simultaneously to flow out of the filtering unit. US 545 discloses the first and second outlets allow filtered liquid using the first filtering technology and the second filtering technology simultaneously to flow out of the filtering unit (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5.
Further, US 545 discloses the first filtering technology is not adapted to remove or exchange minerals to reduce the liquid hardness (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265) such that the first filtering technology provides liquid with an original mineral content (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).
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 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.
Claims 3, 5-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 545, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claim 3, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the first cavity comprises an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265 (US 545 discloses antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal is desirable and granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal is desirable (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify single cartridge (10B) to include a filter material, such as antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal and/or granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal, as disclosed in US 545, because it would assist with the removal of unwanted impurities and/or because having the filtering material in both single cartridges (10A and 10B) is a mere duplication of an element of an apparatus, which involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B). There is no patentable significance of an additional filter material, such as antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal and/or granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional in water treatment, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange minerals in order to reduce the liquid hardness (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).
US 545 discloses ion exchange resin (cation exchange resin and anion exchange resin) and ion exchange fiber, which are capable of removing and/or exchanging minerals in order to reduce hardness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify single cartridge (10A) to include a filter material, such as antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal and/or granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal, as disclosed in US 545, because it would assist with the removal of unwanted impurities and/or because having the filtering material in both single cartridges (10A and 10B) is a mere duplication of an element of an apparatus, which involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B). There is no patentable significance of an additional filter material, such as antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal and/or granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional in water treatment, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the filter material may be an activated carbon or an ion exchange resin (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265). US 545 does not disclose the second cavity comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology.
While US 545 does not explicitly disclose a single embodiment of a second cavity comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering, nonetheless does disclose all of these features within the disclosure as being compatible aspects of a single invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosure of US 545 in order to achieve the second cavity comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology, as recited in claim 6, and reasonably expect the resulting device to filter water as intended by US 545.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second single cartridge of US 545 to comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means because each of the adsorbents can remove various impurities in the water.
Regarding claim 7, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the first cavity comprises a first filtering structure extending along a first length and for providing the first filtering technology, and wherein the second cavity comprises a second filtering structure extending along a second length and for providing the second filtering technology (see rejection of claim 1).
US 545 discloses the first length is greater than the second length, or wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see US 545 figures 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 1S, 6S, 7S, 3T, 7T). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the length of each of the cartridges to whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47 (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B (changes in shape are merely a “matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant”).).
One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify the length of either the first single cartridge and/or the second single cartridge of US 545 to be a length needed to fit a filtration system and/or to have a length that allows water to have sufficient contact time with the filter material.
Regarding claim 17, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5.
Further, US 545 discloses the first filtering technology is not adapted to remove or exchange minerals to reduce the liquid hardness such that the first filtering technology provides liquid with an original mineral content (see rejection of claims 3 and 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 545 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of https://www.gravertech.com/tech/ion-exchange-products-powdered-bead-resins-sdi (hereinafter NPL) (published March 20, 2018).
Regarding claim 5, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the second filtering technology is selected from a list of options of filter material, which includes ion exchange resin (cation exchange resin and anion exchange resin), ion exchange fiber (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265). US 545 does not disclose or provide reasoning for selecting an ion exchange resin (cation exchange resin and anion exchange resin) and/or ion exchange fiber from the list of filter material/absorbent presented.
NPL discloses “Ion exchange resins help replace dissolved impurities in water with beneficial ions. Cation resins can remove hard minerals like calcium, magnesium, and sodium. Anion resins can help eliminate anions, such as chloride, silica, and sulfate. The resin bed is made from polymer with functional groups that attract and hold onto cation or anion. When water flows through this bed, the unwanted ions in the water are exchanged with the ions attached to the resin. These resins help ensure ultra-pure water for power plant applications (see NPL page 10 under Frequently Asked Questions).
NPL is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water purification, treatment material for purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select an ion exchange material, as disclosed in NPL, as the filter material in the cartridge of US 545, which includes an ion exchange resin/ion exchange fiber as one example of the filter material, because it would assist with removing hard minerals like calcium, magnesium, and sodium and/or eliminate anions, such as chloride, silica, and sulfate (see NPL page 10).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 545 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of https://getwellnatural.com/adya-4-layer-earth-replacement-multi-stage-water-filter-activated-carbon-zeolites-silica-sand-ion-exchange-resin/?srsltid=AfmBOoo7nMsVhNAn1zZ9p_tcMZz-dL1sMnVYUq3d4_LXGgR2LqmnLuxp (hereinafter Adya) (published October 8, 2017).
Regarding claim 6, US 545 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 545 discloses the filter material may be an activated carbon or an ion exchange resin (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265). US 545 does not disclose the second cavity comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology.
Adya discloses a 4-layer multistage water filter cartridge that comprises a layer of activated carbon, a layer of zeolites, a layer of silica sand and a layer of ion exchange resin (see Adya title and page 3). Adya discloses that the combination of the 4-layers achieves purified water (activated carbon) and removal of heavy metal ions and replacing them with harmless ion, such as sodium or potassium (ion exchange resin) and that the 4-layers is able to achieve approximately purification of 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
Adya is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water purification, treatment material for purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify one of the single cartridges of US 545 to comprise an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology, as disclosed in Adya, because it would assist with purification of the water while also removing heavy metals from water and/or because it would assist with achieving purification of approximately 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
It would have been obvious to substitute one of the single cartridges of US 545 with a 4-layer filter, as disclosed in Adya, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of purifying water.
Rejection based on US 962
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210039962 A1 (hereinafter US 962)
Regarding claim 1, US 962 discloses filtering unit (see US 962 abstract and figures 1-3).
US 962 discloses a first cavity with a first filtering technology for filtering a liquid and a second cavity with a second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology, for filtering a liquid (see US 962 abstract, claim 1, and figures 1 & 3, reservoir chamber/lid containing at least one means to counter precipitations and filter section containing filtering means and paragraphs 0007, 0010). It is noted that the claimed “first cavity with a first filtering technology for filtering a liquid” may be either the reservoir chamber/lid or the filter section of US 962 and the claimed “second cavity with a second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology, for filtering a liquid” is understood to be the other element.
US 962 discloses the first cavity comprising a first inlet and a first outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit and the second cavity comprising a second inlet and a second outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the second filtering technology from the filtering unit (see US 962 abstract, claim 1, and figures 1-3, inlet opening 1.3/outlet opening 1.4 and contact openings 7 (wherein water enters some openings and treated water exits other openings), and paragraphs 0056-0057, 0063-0064).
US 962 discloses the first cavity and the second cavity are integrated in a same unit (see US 962 abstract, claim 1, and figures 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 2, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses the first filtering technology is adapted to filter, impuritiesand/or substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, and/or chlorine (see rejection of claim 1; see US 962 paragraphs 0003, 0007, 0010, 0016-0017, 0056).
Regarding claim 4, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses the second filtering technology is adapted to filter, impurities substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid (see US 962 paragraphs 0010, 0011).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 962 is substantially identical to the claimed second filtering technology of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 962 is presumed inherently capable of filtering impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, wherein the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange heavy metals in the liquid.
Regarding claim 5, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange minerals, in order to reduce the liquid hardness (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses the first cavity comprises a first filtering structure extending along a first length and for providing the first filtering technology, and wherein the second cavity comprises a second filtering structure extending along a second length and for providing the second filtering technology, wherein the first length is greater than the second length, or wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see rejection of claim 1; see US 962 figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses the cavities are integrated in the same unit is such a way that the filtering unit can be connected to and/or at least partially arranged in a same liquid source so that liquid from the same liquid source can be fed to the cavities through the first and second inlets in order to be filtered (see rejection of claim 1; see US 962 figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 8. As noted above, claim 16 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 is understood as the first and second outlets allow filtered liquid using the first filtering technology or the second filtering technology or both simultaneously to flow out of the filtering unit. US 962 discloses the first and second outlets allow filtered liquid using the first filtering technology and the second filtering technology simultaneously to flow out of the filtering unit (see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 545.
Regarding claim 3, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses a filter section but does not disclose the first cavity comprises an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology.
US 545 discloses a filtering unit that can be used in a beverage system (see US 545, purification cartridge, figures 1, 2, 5, 8, 1S, 4S, 8S, 1T and paragraphs 0019, 0023, 0041, & 0065). US 545 discloses the first cavity comprises an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265 (US 545 discloses antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal is desirable and granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal is desirable (see US 545 paragraphs 0144, 0201, 0265).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter section of US 962 to comprise filter material, such as antibacterial silver-impregnated activated charcoal and/or granular absorbent including silver added activated charcoal, as disclosed in US 545, because it would assist with the removal of unwanted impurities.
Claims 3-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of https://getwellnatural.com/adya-4-layer-earth-replacement-multi-stage-water-filter-activated-carbon-zeolites-silica-sand-ion-exchange-resin/?srsltid=AfmBOoo7nMsVhNAn1zZ9p_tcMZz-dL1sMnVYUq3d4_LXGgR2LqmnLuxp (hereinafter Adya) (published October 8, 2017).
Regarding claim 3, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses a filter section and a means to counter precipitation section but does not disclose the material in either section. US 962 does not disclose the first cavity comprises an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology.
Adya discloses a 4-layer multistage water filter cartridge that comprises a layer of activated carbon, a layer of zeolites, a layer of silica sand and a layer of ion exchange resin (see Adya title and page 3). Adya discloses that the combination of the 4-layers achieves purified water (activated carbon) and removal of heavy metal ions and replacing them with harmless ion, such as sodium or potassium (ion exchange resin) and that the 4-layers is able to achieve approximately purification of 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
Adya is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. water purification, treatment material for purifying water.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify filter section of US 962 to comprise an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the first filtering technology, as disclosed in Adya, because it would assist with purification of the water while also removing heavy metals from water and/or because it would assist with achieving purification of approximately 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
It would have been obvious to modify and/or substitute the filter section of US 962 with a 4-layer filter, as disclosed in Adya, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of purifying water.
Regarding claim 4, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses a filter section and a means to counter precipitation section but does not disclose the material in either section. US 962 does not disclose the second filtering technology is adapted to filter, impurities, pathogens and/or organic pollutants and contaminants, and substances affecting the taste and/or odor of the liquid, wherein the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange heavy metals in the liquid.
See comments above regarding the disclosure of Adya.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify filter section of US 962 to comprise an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology, as disclosed in Adya, because it would assist with purification of the water while also removing heavy metals from water and/or because it would assist with achieving purification of approximately 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
It would have been obvious to modify and/or substitute the filter section of US 962 with a 4-layer filter, as disclosed in Adya, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of purifying water.
Regarding claim 5, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses a filter section and a means to counter precipitation section but does not disclose the material in either section. US 962 does not disclose the second filtering technology is adapted to remove and/or exchange minerals, in order to reduce the liquid hardness.
See comments above regarding the disclosure of Adya.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify filter section of US 962 to comprise an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology, as disclosed in Adya, because it would assist with purification of the water while also removing heavy metals from water and/or because it would assist with achieving purification of approximately 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
It would have been obvious to modify and/or substitute the filter section of US 962 with a 4-layer filter, as disclosed in Adya, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of purifying water.
Regarding claim 6, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 962 discloses a filter section and a means to counter precipitation section but does not disclose the material in either section. US 962 does not disclose the second cavity comprises an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology.
See comments above regarding the disclosure of Adya.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify filter section of US 962 to comprise an ion exchange resin and an activated carbon filtering means for providing the second filtering technology, as disclosed in Adya, because it would assist with purification of the water while also removing heavy metals from water and/or because it would assist with achieving purification of approximately 300 gallons of water (see Adya page 3).
It would have been obvious to modify and/or substitute the filter section of US 962 with a 4-layer filter, as disclosed in Adya, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of purifying water.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner's remarks to Applicants' arguments are herein incorporated into the rejections presented above. Additional remarks are represented below.
In the response, it was argued that “claim 1 has been amended to specify that the first outlet is an outlet of the filtering unit, which allows liquid to be dispensed from the filtering unit. Similarly, the second outlet is also an outlet of the filtering unit which allows liquid to be dispensed from the filtering unit. This means that the liquid does not flow from the first outlet into the second cavity. Instead, the first cavity and the second cavity each have their own outlets that allow liquid to flow out of the entire filtering unit” (see Response page 8). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language “a first outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit” is understood as liquid filtered from a first cavity/cartridge exits the filter unit and the claim language “a second outlet of the filtering unit for dispensing the liquid filtered by the second filtering technology from the filtering unit” is understood as liquid filtered from a second cavity/cartridge exits the filter unit. The claim language does not limit the flow of liquid between the first and second cavity/cartridge. In US 545, the liquid filtered by the first single cartridge is deemed to exit the single cartridge, flow into the second single cartridge and eventually flows out of the filtration unit/cartridge, and thus, the combination of elements yields a first outlet for dispensing the liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from the filtering unit. That is, the claim language does not limit the outlet to solely liquid filtered by the first single cartridge/cavity.
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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights