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. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim s 1-14 , drawn to a device for treating aqueous liquid . Group II , claim 15 , drawn to a method . The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the device of claim 1 , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Tob (PGPub# US 2020/0207651 A1) . See rejection of claim 1 below. During a telephone conversation with Mike Hammer on 7/17/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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: “a conditioning unit” in claim 1 “a gas providing unit” in claim 1 “a first flow control unit” in claim 4 “a second flow control unit” in claim 10 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. “a conditioning unit” in page 14, line 30 is specified as a mineral cartridge. “a gas providing unit” in page 2, line 15 is specified as a gas cartridge. “a first flow control unit” in page 8, line 16 is specified as a storage section. “a second flow control unit” in page 13, line 7 is specified as a carbonation valve. 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. 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 s 1-14 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. Regarding claim 1 , the phrase " particularly the aqueous liquid previously pre-conditioned in the first liquid container " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Similarly, claims 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 use the term, “particularly” and are similarly indefinite as applied to claim 1 above. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the storage section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first flow control unit" in line 3 and “the pressure reducer” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the storage section" in line 3. 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. Claim s 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Tob (PGPub# US 2020/0207651 A1). Regarding claim 1, Tob teaches a device for treating an aqueous liquid (abstract and figure 2) , comprising a gas providing unit 8 , providing a gas (CO2) at a first pressure (par. 95) , a first gas line connecting the gas providing unit and a first liquid container 7 , such that the gas is feedable in the first liquid container via the first gas line, such that when the first liquid container contains the aqueous liquid, the aqueous liquid can be pre-conditioned, a conditioning unit 5 (par. 95 and figure 2: first gas line is between gas unit 9 and first container 7 to precondition by lowering PH.) , a fluid line connecting the first liquid container with a second liquid container 15 (par. 88 and figure 2, Fluid line connects first container 7 with second container 15.) , when the second liquid container is provided, wherein the fluid line comprises a first section and a second section, wherein the first section of the fluid line connects the first liquid container and the conditioning unit and the second section of the fluid line connects the conditioning unit and the second liquid container (figure 2: Shows first section of line connects first container with conditioning unit and a second section that connects the conditioning unit to the second container. ) , a second gas line connecting the gas providing unit and the second liquid container (figure 2: Gas line connected through valve 19 to second container 15.) , when the second liquid container is provided, such that the gas is feedable in the second liquid container via the second gas line, such that when the second liquid container contains the aqueous liquid, particularly the aqueous liquid previously pre-conditioned in the first liquid container, the gas can be injected in the aqueous liquid (par. 88) , wherein the device is arranged and configured such that the gas is feedable in the aqueous liquid upstream of the conditioning unit via the first gas line and downstream of the conditioning unit via the second gas line (par. 88 and figure 2). Regarding claim 3, Tob teaches wherein the at least one valve is arranged and configured to open and/or to close the first gas line and/or the second gas line, particularly wherein the at least one valve is a low-pressure valve. (par. 88 teaches valves 9 and 19.) Regarding claim 4, Tob teache s a first flow control unit, wherein the first flow control unit is configured to regulate the amount of gas passing the first gas line. (par. 88 teaches valves 9 and 19.) Regarding claim 5, Tob teaches that the first flow control unit comprises a storage section configured to store a predefined volume of gas, wherein the storage section comprises an entrance and an exit, wherein the entrance and/or the exit are configured to be opened and/or closed. (figure 2 and par. 88: Section of pipe between first container and gas supply unit before valve would read on the claimed storage section configured to be open or closed by valve.) Regarding claim 6, Tob teaches that the first flow control unit comprises at least one pre-conditioning valve, wherein the at least one pre-conditioning valve 9 is configured to open and/or close the first gas line, in particular configured to open and/or close the entrance and/or the exit of the storage section. (par. 88 and figure 2) Regarding claim 8, Tob teaches that the device comprises at least one flow restrictor, wherein the at least one flow restrictor is comprised in the first flow control unit and/or in the gas providing unit, particularly in the pressure reducer or downstream of the pressure reducer. (par. 88 teaches valve 9 which reads on a flow restrictor in a first flow control unit interpreted to be a storage second of pipe.) Regarding claim 9, Tob teaches that the at least one flow restrictor is arranged and configured to restrict a gas flow at the entrance and/or at the exit of the storage section. (par. 88 teaches valve 9 which reads on a flow restrictor in a first flow control unit interpreted to be a storage second of pipe.) Regarding claim 10, Tob teaches that the device comprises a second flow control unit, wherein the second flow control unit comprises at least one carbonation valve configured to open and/or close the second gas line. (par. 88, figure 2: teaches valve 19) Regarding claim 13, Tob teaches that the conditioning unit 5 comprises at least one medium, wherein the medium is configured to add at least one substance to the aqueous liquid, particularly the pre-conditioned aqueous liquid, particularly by dissolution of the substance in the aqueous liquid, when the aqueous liquid is brought in contact with the medium, particularly wherein the medium comprises at least one mineral salt, particularly a mineral salt comprising calcium, magnesium and/or sodium. (par. 85-89) Regarding claim 14, Tob teaches that the device comprises a pump 6 configured to move the aqueous liquid from the first liquid container to the second liquid container via the fluid line. (par. 88) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 2, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tob (PGPub# US 2020/0207651 A1) in view of Hancock et al. (US Pat# 4850269). Regarding claim 2, Tob does not explicitly teach that the gas providing unit comprises a gas reservoir containing a pressurised gas at a second pressure and a pressure reducer connected with the gas reservoir, wherein the pressure reducer is configured to reduce the pressure from the second pressure to the first pressure, such that the gas providing unit provides the gas at the first pressure. However, Hancock teaches a similar carbonator. (abstract figure 1) Hancock teaches that regulator or restrictor can be used to control the pressure of the CO2 gas supplied to the vessel in order to form small bubbles. (col. 15, lines 35-52) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the pressure reducer of Hancock, to the system of Tob, in order to control the pressure of the CO2 gas supplied to the vessel in order to form small bubbles as taught by Hancock. Regarding claim 7, Tob does not explicitly teach that the first flow control unit comprises a first pre-conditioning valve and a second pre-conditioning valve, wherein the first pre-conditioning valve and the second pre-conditioning valve are arranged in series, such that the storage section is delimited by the first and the second pre-conditioning valve, particularly wherein the first pre-conditioning valve is arranged and configured to open and/or close the entrance of the storage section, and, particularly, wherein the second pre-conditioning valve is arranged and configured to open and/or close the exit of the storage section. However, Hancock teaches a similar carbonator. (abstract figure 1) Hancock teaches that it is known to provide valves in series such as 42 and 46. (col. 11, lines 15-45) A check valve is used in order to restrict flow in a single direction and prevent backflow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the check valve of Hancock, to the system of Tob, in order to control the pressure of the CO2 gas supplied to the vessel in order to restrict flow in a single direction and prevent backflow. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tob does not explicitly teach that the second gas line comprises a nozzle, wherein the nozzle is arranged and configured to be insertable in the second liquid container, when the second liquid container is provided (claim 11), and that the nozzle comprises two outlet openings, wherein the nozzle is configured such that the gas can stream out of the second gas line via the nozzle, particularly via the two outlet openings, when the gas passes the second gas line (claim 12). However, Hancock teaches a similar carbonator. (abstract figure 1) Hancock teaches that regulator or restrictor can be used to control the pressure of the CO2 gas supplied to the vessel in order to form small bubbles. (col. 15, lines 35-52) Hancock teaches a nozzle/diffuser 48 which would inherently have multiple outlet openings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the nozzle/diffuser of Hancock, to the system of Tob, in order to order to form small bubbles as taught by Hancock. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5569 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-5PM EST M-F . 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 Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7839 . 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. /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761