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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Pump unit configured to selectively pump … according to a pressure in the … outflow pipeline: claim 1
Low pressure control portion configured to.. , and high pressure control portion configured to…: claim 3 and others
Controller configured to …: claims 8 and 9
Pressure sensing elements (disclosed as sensors or pressure swtiches.)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15 are 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.
Claims 1, 6: “the first product water outflow” and “the second product water outflow” in claim 1 lack antecedent basis, which were introduced in claim 6.
Claim 1: the last element of claim 1 had two options (i) and (ii) in the alternative. However, the disclosure, fig. 1, is deficient for the operation of these two options. Branch line L21 through the RO unit and L22 bypassing the RO unit go to the faucet. However, there is no other controls or valves shown in these lines. Since line L22 is open and is the least resistant flow path, all or most of the water would flow this way, bypassing the RO. Therefore, it is unclear how the apparatus would work as intended.
Claims 7 and 9: Claim limitation “the high pressure control portion configured to control the pump…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In claims 7 and 9, there are two product lines. First product line (L21) goes from RO permeate to the faucet (30.) Second product line (L22) goes from upstream of RO to the same faucet (30.) The problems are (1) since it is shown as a single faucet, when it opens, both line pressures drop and pump will pump water through both lines. (Please note that the lines L21 and L22 are connected to each-other, or open to the atmosphere when the faucet is open.) (2) If the faucet were to be a dual faucet (like a hot/cold water faucet, which does not appear to be disclosed) then when L21 opens, pump will pressurize L22 as well, and vise-versa. Are these intentional? Claims are indefinite because the claimed functionality of the entirety of claims 7 and 9 are unclear. This is true even if the claims were not considered under 35 USC 112(f.)
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Arguments traversing this rejection are not persuasive: applicant simply cited a large section of the specification, without providing any explanation.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over th combination of Kuepper (US 5,520,816) and Qiu (US 2019/0070559).
Kuepper teaches a reverse osmosis filtration system as claimed. See Fig. 1d copied herein and fig. 1e. The system has raw water inlet line, a prefilter and a booster pump upstream of the RO; a product water tank, a carbon filter and a faucet downstream. The pump operation is controlled by pressure in the product water line, which is as claimed. See col. 2 line 67 – col. 3 line 23. The bypass line is seen in fig. 1d, the raw water line directly connected to the RO.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuepper differs from the claimed invention in (1) the pump unit having a pump bypass, and (2) a single faucet having both filtered water lines through and bypassing the RO.
Kuepper teaches a pump bypass as shown above in fig. 1d (a variation of fig. 1a,) wherein the bypass is for the RO unit submerged in the water tank. Having a direct bypass to the pump in figure 1a of Kuepper, instad, is only a minor design change and obvious. See “rearrangement of parts” in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding having a single faucet in place of two separate faucets for RO and non-RO product water lines, see Qiu, details of which are explained in rejection 2 below. Qiu also teaches having the second purified water line downstream of the prefilters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the advantages of Qiu in the teaching of Kuepper, including the reduced number of parts
PNG
media_image2.png
599
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alternate, Qiu in view of Kuepper:
Teaching of Qiu is seen in the figure 3 and rejection 2. Qiu fails to teach the pump and the bypass to the pump. However, Qiu teaches in [0004] that use of a pump to boost the pressure [if required] is known in the art, and Qiu eliminates the need for such a pump, utilizing the tap water line pressure and avoiding a compressed air product water tank (see [0022].) Thus having the pump and its bypass would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as known in the art or as taught by Kuepper.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Kuepper (US 5,520,816) and Qiu (US 2019/0070559) and further in view of Aid (US 4,773,991) and Friedrichsen et al (US 2013/0037464.)
Rejection of claims 1 and 15 are explained in rejection 1 above.
Claims 3-6, 8, 12, 13 recite the controls as taught by Kuepper, except for the low pressure-disablement of the pump. Kuepper teaches these at col 3, Id.
Regarding the pump shut-off when the line pressure is insufficient, see Aid, which teaches shutting the pump down when line pressure is insufficient to protect the pump from cavitation at col 2, lines 53-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such safety measures as taught in Kuepper.
Regarding the high pressure switch/sensor and electrical connections in series with power supply – see 11 in the figures of Kuepper.
Claim 11: while Kuepper is silent on the type of pump, having variable speed pumps for RO systems is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use such pumps to control the water flow in the desired ranges. See for example, Friedrichsen, which is about RO control using variable speed pumps.
Applicant’s claims 7 and 9 appear to be the narrowest. Qiu (see the figures, fig 3 copied herein) teaches the claims, including the first and second treated water outputs, except for the addition of the raw water pump and associated controls in parallel with the raw water input.
Having a pump to assist in obtaining enough pressure to operate the RO system when a municipal water supply is not reliable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In such situations, one would provide such a pump system form available sources or literature, such as taught by the combination of Kuepper, Aid and Friedrichsen as described in rejections 1 and 2 above.
MPEP 2143: “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777