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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 13 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. As to claim 13, the claim recites the limitation "the present embodiment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 1-5, 7 , 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0062196 A1 to Sin (Sin) . As to claim s 1 and 7 , Sin teaches an electrolytic cell (100) for electrolyzing and supplying water, the cell comprising an electrolysis chamber (110) to which the water is supplied, a solid polymer membrane (210) defining a portion of an outer edge of the electrolysis chamber (110) , the solid polymer membrane (210) having a first surface facing inwardly of the electrolysis chamber (110) and a second surface facing outwardly of the electrolysis chamber (110) a first electrode (220) in contact with the first surface of the membrane (210) in the electrolysis chamber (110) and a second electrode (230) in contact with the second surface of the membrane (210) and outside the electrolysis chamber (110) (Paragraphs 0032 and 0035; Figure s 1 and 10 ) . As to claim 2, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sin teaches that the first electrode (220) is disposed opposite the second electrode (230) with the membrane (210) therebetween (Paragraph 0035; Figure 1) . As to claim 3, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sin further teaches that the second electrode (230) forms part of the outer wall of the electrolytic cell (100) (Paragraph 0035; Figure 1) . As to claim 4, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sin further teaches that the first electrode, second electrode and membrane comprise cylindrical portions each forming a portion of a cylinder in a cylindrical electrolysis chamber (Paragraph s 0024 and 0032 ; Figure 10) . As to claim 5, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 4 . Sin further teaches that an outer (top) wall of the electrolytic cell (100) is provided with a supply port (120) for supplying liquid through the electrolysis chamber (110) , and thus at least partially along a circumferential direction of the cylindrical portion of the first electrode (220) in the cylindrical embodiment (Paragraphs 0024, 0032 and 0035; Figures 1 and 10) . As to claim 10, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sin further teaches that an outer wall of the electrolysis cell (100) is provided with a window ( opening) passing through the outer wall, an outer periphery of the membrane (210) extends outwardly over a peripheral edge of the window and is fixed (at least indirectly) to an inner surface of the outer wall and the second electrode (230) is exposed to the outside of the electrolytic cell (100) through the window to form a part of the outer wall of the electrolytic cell (100) (Paragraphs 0031 and 0032; Figures 1 and 10) . As to claim 11, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1 0 . Sin teaches that the second electrode (230) is disposed inside the window (Figure 1) . As to claim 14, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sin teaches that the outer wall of the electrolytic cell in the circumferential embodiment is provided with tow windows passing through the outer wall, the second electrode (230) formed in two parts arranged so as to close the two windows to separate them from an inside region of the outer wall, outer surface regions of the second electrode exposed outwardly of the electrolytic cell through the two windows (Figure s 1 and 10) . 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. 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. Claim s 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 2018/124643 to Bang (Bang) . As to claim s 6 and 13 , Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 4 . However, Sin fails to teach that the electrolysis chamber is provided with a slope. However, Bang also discusses electrolytic water treatment in a cylindrical apparatus and teaches that inside the cylinder a screw member (spiral guide slope) should be provided in order to rotate the incoming water flow and increase the flow velocity to maximize the dissolved hydrogen in the raw water (Paragraphs 0001, 0026 and 0032; Figure 3) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cylindrical embodiment of Sin with the addition of a screw member, a spiral guide slope, for spirally guiding the water along the circumferential direction of the cylindrical portion of the first electrode, in order to maximize the dissolved hydrogen as taught by Bang. Bang teaches that the screw/slope is formed over the entire axial length of the cylindrical electrolysis cell (Figure 3) . Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sin as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of KR 20120092293 A to Lim (Lim) . As to claim 8, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 7 . Sim teaches that the apparatus further includes a device for supplying power to the first and second electrode (Paragraph 0036). However, Sin fails to each that this device is a power generating device driven by the water flow. However, Lim also discusses electrolytic water treatment an d teaches that the electrolysis device can be self powered by generating power form the inlet flow of water (Paragraph s 000 1 and 0012-0025; Figure 1) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Sim with the addition of a power generating device driving by the water flowing into the electrolysis chamber and supplying power to the first and second electrodes in order to allow for the apparatus to be self powered as taught by Lim. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sin and Lim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2019/0256386 to Adams (Adams) . As to claim 9, the combination of Sin and Lim teaches the apparatus of claim 8 . However, Sin fails to further teach that the device comprises a shower head. However, Adams also discusses the generation of alkaline water and teaches that a preferred usage of this alkaline water is in a shower head (Paragraph 0081) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to attach the apparatus of Sin to a shower head in order to desirably utilize the alkaline water as taught by Adams. Claim 1 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sin as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2005/0183949 A1 to Daly et al. (Daly) . As to claim 1 2 , Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 5. However, Sin fails to teach that the supply port extends in a tangential direction of the cylinder to communication with the electrolysis chamber. However, Daly also discusses electrolytic water treatment and teaches that the inlets and outlets to the electrolysis chambers should be formed tangentially on the cylinder in order to achieve a spiral flow pattern throughout the cylindrical chambers (Paragraphs 0015 and 0087) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the supply port of Sin to extend in a tangential direction of the cylinder in order to achieve a spiral flow pattern in the cylindrical electrolysis chamber as taught by Daly. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sin as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of CN 108714257 A to Zhu et al. ( Zhu) . As to claim 15, Sin teaches the apparatus of claim 1 4 . However, Sin fails to teach that the apparatus comprises a sliding cover over the plurality of windows. However, Zhu also discusses an electrolytic device for generating ionized water and teaches that the apparatus can comprises a sliding cover to close and protect the apparatus openings when not in use (Paragraph 0075) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Sin with a sliding cover closing the windows in order to protect the device when not in use as taught by Zhu. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7946 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 AM to 4 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 by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . 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. /CIEL P CONTRERAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794