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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on July 6, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “filtering unit adapted to be connected to or at least partially arranged in a liquid source”, “a first inlet from the liquid source into the first cavity” and “a second inlet from the liquid source into the second cavity”. It is noted that “liquid source” is not an element of the claimed filtering unit.
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 by dispensing filtered liquid from the first outlet, or the second filtering technology by dispensing filtered liquid from the second outlet, or both simultaneously by simultaneously dispensing filtered liquid from the first outlet and the second outlet”.
Claim 16 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how an outlet can “enable selectively filtering liquid”. That is, it is unclear what element or device or structural feature of the claimed “first outlet” and the claimed “second outlet”, separately or together, can achieve the function of enabling selectively the filtering of a liquid.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16 and 17 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 adapted to be connected to or at least partially arranged in a liquid source (see US 962 abstract and figures 1-3).
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
US 962 discloses a first cavity with a first filtering technology and a second cavity with a second filtering technology, which is different from the first filtering technology (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” 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” is understood to be the other element.
US 962 discloses the first cavity comprising a first inlet from the liquid source into the first cavity and a first outlet from the first cavity out of the filtering unit for dispensing liquid filtered by the first filtering technology from out of the filtering unit and out of the liquid source and the second cavity comprising a second inlet from the liquid source into the second cavity and a second outlet from the second cavity out of the filtering unit for dispensing liquid filtered by the second filtering technology out of the filtering unit and out of the liquid source (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 16, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 8.
As noted above, claim 16 is deemed indefinite.
US 962 discloses the first and second outlets enable selectively filtering liquid from the liquid source using both simultaneously by simultaneously dispensing filtered liquid from the first outlet and the second outlet (see rejection of claim 1). 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).
Regarding claim 17, US 962 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, US 962 discloses the first filtering technology is adapted to preserve a mineral content in the liquid such that the first filtering technology provides liquid with an original mineral content (see rejection of claim 1; see US 962 paragraphs 0025-0028, 0047, 0059-0062).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner's remarks to Applicants' arguments are herein incorporated into the rejections presented above. Additional remarks are represented below.
The written description rejection has been withdrawn.
The indefiniteness rejection has been maintained.
The prior art rejections based on US 545 have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections based on US 962 have been maintained.
In the response, claim 16 was amended to clarify the first and second outlets enable selectively filtering liquid (see Response pages 7-8). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. It is unclear how an outlet achieves selective filtering. That is, it is unclear what element or device or structural feature of the claimed “first outlet” and the claimed “second outlet”, separately or together, can achieve the function of enabling selectively the filtering of a liquid.
“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time” (see MPEP 2111.01, I). The US published application of the present application discloses “a valve may be provided, which is configured to selectively allow or not allow a flow of liquid from the liquid source into filtering unit 70 and/or the discharge line 23” (see paragraph 0063) and “the valve 97 may connect the first outlet 76 and/or the inlet 21 with the second flushing line 95, so that residual liquid in the first cavity 71 and/or the first outlet 76 and/or the inlet 21 can flow by gravity via the valve 97 into the second flushing line 95 to be discharged via the flushing outlet 96 (see paragraph 0083; see also paragraph 0084 and figure 4). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim” (see MPEP 2111.01, II).
In the response, it was argued that “the first/second inlet is from the liquid source into the first/second cavity, and the first/second outlet is from the first/second cavity and out of the filtering unit and out of the liquid source. The openings 7 of US 962 do not meet this limitation because the openings only allow water to pass from the water tank into the reservoir chamber 6, and then back into the water tank again. Thus, none of the openings 7 is an outlet that leads out of the reservoir chamber 6 and out of the liquid source” (see Response page 13). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. It is also noted that, with regards to withdrawn rejections based on US 545, it was argued that “Applicant has amended claim 1 again to further clarify that the filtering unit has a first cavity and a second cavity, and each of the cavities has its own inlet from the liquid source, and its own outlet that leads out of the filtering unit. The outlet of the first cavity does not lead into the second cavity. Furthermore, neither of the outlets leads back into the liquid source” (see Response page 9).
The argument is deemed unpersuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with Applicant’s claim language. Amended claim 1 does not limit the flow path of treated liquid, either from the first cavity or the second cavity, from being directed into another cavity, either the first, second or an unknown cavity, prior to an outlet of the liquid source.
It is noted that “liquid source” is not an element of the claimed filtering unit. A liquid source may be any source that comprises liquid and that the liquid to be treated in either the first cavity and/or second cavity may be a portion of the liquid from a liquid source. That is, the same or different portion of liquid from a liquid source may be treated by the first cavity and/or second cavity.
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.
Conclusion
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 on 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