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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “23” has been used to designate both the electrodes (fig. 1) and the assembly portion (fig. 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-12 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 2-12 all recite the limitation "the device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claims are assumed to recite, “the electrolytic hydrogen-water container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jea KR 20150087077 in view of Hirakui JP 2012-217868 and Ginter WO 2024/084392.
Claims 1 and 2, Jea teaches an electrolytic hydrogen water container comprising: a container (20) which includes an inner space capable of holding water, a through hole (at 26) arranged at a bottom surface of the container, and an assembly portion (26) disposed around the through hole, an electrolytic hydrogen water module (24) mounted in the through hole of the container and having an inlet through which water can be introduced into the electrolytic hydrogen water module for electrolysis and hydrogen dissolution to get hydrogen rich water and a plurality of electrodes (24a-1, 24b-1) disposed on a bottom of the electrolytic hydrogen water module to conduct electricity for electrolysis and an assembly part (24b) able to be aligned and connected with the assembly portion of the container correspondingly, and a power supply base (10) which is electrically connected with the electrolytic hydrogen water module and provided with a plurality of electrode terminals (12a-1, 12a-2) corresponding to the electrodes of the electrolytic hydrogen water module (fig. 1-4). Jea does not teach an outlet or circular electrodes.
Hirakui teaches an electrolytic hydrogen water container comprising: a container (1) which includes an inner space capable of holding water, a through hole arranged at a bottom surface of the container, and an assembly portion disposed around the through hole, an electrolytic hydrogen water module (5) mounted in the through hole of the container and having an inlet through which water can be introduced into the electrolytic hydrogen water module for electrolysis and hydrogen dissolution to get hydrogen rich water and a plurality of electrodes (20, 23) disposed on a bottom of the electrolytic hydrogen water module to conduct electricity for electrolysis and an assembly part able to be aligned and connected with the assembly portion of the container correspondingly, and a power supply base (2) which is electrically connected with the electrolytic hydrogen water module and provided with a plurality of circular electrodes (21, 24) corresponding to the electrodes of the electrolytic hydrogen water module (fig. 1-3). Providing circular electrodes to electrically connect a pitcher and a base is a well known technique in the art as demonstrated by Hirakui and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the circular electrodes allow for electrical connection between the pitcher and base regardless of the relative orientation of the pitcher and base. The claim would have been obvious because "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Ginter teaches an electrolytic hydrogen water container comprising: a container (10) which includes an inner space capable of holding water, a through hole arranged at a bottom surface of the container, and an assembly portion (at 37) disposed around the through hole, an electrolytic hydrogen water module (5) mounted in the through hole of the container and having an inlet (6) through which water can be introduced into the electrolytic hydrogen water module for electrolysis and hydrogen dissolution to get hydrogen rich water and an outlet (7) through which the hydrogen rich water is output (fig. 1-7). The recited module is known in the art as demonstrated by Ginter and therefore the recited combination of the module with the container and base of the prior art is substitution of one known type of module for another and would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3 and 8, Ginter further teaches the electrolytic hydrogen water module further includes a casing (18), a water pump (13) an electrolyzer (16), at least two water channels (28, 29) and a circuit board (22), wherein the inlet is disposed on an upper end of the casing while the outlet is arranged at one side of the casing, the water pump is mounted in the casing and corresponding to the inlet for drawing water, each of two ends of the electrolyzer is provided with one of the water channels, one end of the electrolyzer is connected with the water pump and the other end is connected with the outlet, the electrolyzer is capable of electrolysis and hydrogen dissolution, the circuit board is mounted to a bottom of the casing and electrically connected with the water pump, the electrolyzer and an electrical source (fig. 1-7).
Claims 5 and 10, Jea shows what appears to be a threaded connection between the assembly portion and the assembly part but does not specifically state this is the case (fig. 4). Ginter further teaches a threaded connected between an assembly portion (at 37) and an assembly part (at 38) (fig. 1-4). The use of a threaded connection is common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6 and 11, as stated above the use of threaded connection between the assembly portion and the assembly part. The recitation of an L-shaped slot and a protruding block is a recitation of a bayonet type connection which is also very common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 7 and 12, Jea and Ginter further teaches a seal ring (Jea, 30; Ginter, 36) disposed between the assembly part and the assembly portion around the through hole of the container to prevent water from leaking (Jea, fig. 1-4; Ginter, 1-4).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jea KR 20150087077 in view of Hirakui JP 2012-217868 and Ginter WO 2024/084392 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of JP 3193833.
Jea in view of Hirakui and Ginter teach the device of claims 1 and 2 as detailed above but do not teach a filter material at the inlet.
JP teaches an electrolytic hydrogen water container comprising: a container (1) including an inner space for water, an electrolytic hydrogen water module (3) mounted in the container and having an inlet where a filter material (2) is arranged at the inlet (fig. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filter of JP because the filter purifies the raw water in the pot prior to the water being electrolyzed (pg. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779