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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to water dispensing device, classified in B67D1/008.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method of producing structured water, classified in C02F1/001.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions group I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as without a magnetizer.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely to be applicable to another invention.
The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Frank Miskeil on 06/30/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 are 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Following references are cited in the specification but are not included in the information disclosure statement:
[0017] of the instant specification: Tamasawa, A., Mochizuki, K., Hariya, N., Saito, M., Ishida, H., Doguchi, S., ... Osonoi, T., Hydrogen gas production is associated with reduced interleukin-If] mRNA in peripheral blood after a single dose of acarbose in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients, European Journal of Pharmacology 762: 96-101 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.04.051;
[0021] of the instant specification: US 8968568;
[0076] of the instant specification: Laage, Damien & Elsaesser, Thomas & Hynes, James.
(2017). Perspective: Structure and ultrafast dynamics of biomolecular hydration shells,
Structural Dynamics. 4: 044018 (2017), 10.1063/1.4981019);
[0077] of the instant specification: Thomas Cowan, Cancer and the New Biology of Water, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2019, ISBN: 9781603588812;
[0078] of the instant specification: Pouliquen D, Olivier C, Debien E, Meflah K, Vallette FM, Menanteau J., Changes in liver mitochondrial plasticity induced by brain tumor, BMC Cancer 6: 234 (2006), doi:10.1186/1471-2407-6-234. PMID: 17018136; PMCID: PMC1599747;
[0078] of the instant specification: Jose de Felippe Jr., Paula vinas , Gustavo Vilela, Valter Hamachi , George Gennari, Integrative Medical Oncology: Pathophysiology and Treatment, Editora Sarvier, 8 April 2019; and
[0107] of the instant specification: Kushch et al. Hydrogen-generating compositions based on magnesium, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36(1): 1321-1325 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.06.115.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12084335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 1 of US’335 includes additional features that are not claimed in the instant claim 1.
Limitations of instant claim 2 are present in claim 1 of US’335.
Instant Claim 3 is obvious over the claimed (claim 1) vortex generator of US’335 because blades/rods generating vortex is known in the art.
Instant claim 4 is obvious over claim 1 of US’355 because US’355 discloses that it is known to use electrolysis for H2 generation.
Limitations of instant claim 5 are present in claim 1 of US’335.
Instant claim 6 is obvious over claim 1 of US’355 because US’355 discloses granular magnesium having particle size of 0.01 mm to 1mm.
Limitations of instant claim 7 are present in claim 1 of US’335.
Instant claim 8 is obvious over claim 1 of US’355 because US’355 discloses providing tank for gas supply.
Instant claim 9 is obvious over claim 1 of US’355 because US’355 discloses providing electromagnets.
Limitations of instant claim 10 are present in claim 13 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 11 are present in claim 7 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 12 are present in claim 8 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 13 are present in claim 9 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 14 are present in claim 10 of US’355.
Instant claim 15 is substantially same as claim 1 of US’355.
Instant claim 16 is obvious over claim 1 of US’355 because US’355 discloses spiral tube having conical shape.
Limitations of instant claim 16 is present in claim 1 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 17 is present in claim 1 of US’355.
Limitations of instant claim 18 is present in claim 2 of US’355.
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 3 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.
The term “high revolutions” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high revolutions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CO20200014322A (hereinafter referred as CO’322, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Li et al. (CN 215799940U, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, CO’322 teaches a water dispensing device (refer fig. 1, fig. 8), comprising:
a coupling to attach a water supply source to a structured water generator that receives the water and is configured to output structured water (Refer fig. 1/fig. 8 disclosing water supplied to filtration unit 40 and then connected to structuring unit 60), the structured water generator (Refer fig. 7) comprising:
a motor (66);
a vortex generator configured to rotate at a speed (the conical shaped tank 63 and blades 64 generate vortex);
a gas supply (80) configured to provide one or more gases;
a magnetizer (70) coupled to the structured water generator, the magnetizer being configured to receive the structured water from the structured water generator and to generate a magnetic field within the magnetizer to align the structured water in a direction by one or more magnets generating a magnetic field (refer page 9); and
a dispenser (100) coupled to the magnetizer (70), the dispenser being configured to dispense the structured water received from the magnetizer.
CO’322 discloses that the magnetized magnetization unit (70) has neodymium magnets and that the arrangement of neodymium magnets or other magnetic materials that are compatible with the specific design considerations for each case (Refer page 9). CO’322 does not disclose use of electromagnets, however, electromagnetic device generating magnetic field is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electromagnetic device.
CO’322 discloses that gasification unit 80 having a first gas supply module 81 and a second module of supply of gases 82 selected from gases such as oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen (Refer page 9). CO’322 also discloses that gasification unit may include means or units for performing electrolysis or other means for gas separation also means for gas storage such as cylinders or pressurized tank (refer page 9).
CO’322 does not disclose a reactor coupled to the structured water generator and the water supply source, the reactor being configured to generate H2 and to transfer the H2 to the structured water generator.
Li teaches a device capable of generating hydrogen-rich water and hydrogen-oxygen gas at the same time using electrolysis (refer abstract, fig. 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a reactor producing hydrogen on site instead of providing hydrogen from a gas cylinder in the system of CO’322 because Li establishes that producing hydrogen from water using electrolysis is known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the system comprises a water filtration system receiving water from the water supply source (refer 20, 30, 40 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches (Refer fig. 7) that the vortex generator (60) comprises one or more blades (64) connected to a shaft (65) that is connected to the motor (66) that rotates the shaft at high revolutions and the one or more blades or rods connected to the shaft generate a vortex in the water (refer page 10).
Regarding claim 7, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the gas supply unit (80) supplies gases such as oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen to the water discharged from the magnetizer (refer fig. 1, page 9).
Regarding claim 8, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the gas supply unit (80) comprises gas storage such as cylinders or pressurized tanks (Refer page 9).
Regarding claim 9, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the magnet comprises neodymium (refer page 9).
Regarding claim 10, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the system comprises a cooling system (90) to cool the structured water before dispensing (refer fig. 1, page 8).
Regarding claim 11, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the water filtration system comprises a water filter (20), a reverse osmosis filter (30), and a disinfector (40).
Regarding claim 12, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the reverse osmosis filter comprises at least one cation exchange membrane (Refer page 8).
Regarding claim 13, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the disinfector comprises an ultraviolet light source (Refer page 8).
Regarding claim 14, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the water filter comprises at least one of a sediment filter (refer page 10, fig. 6).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CO20200014322A (hereinafter referred as CO’322, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Li et al. (CN 215799940U, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirillov et al. (US 5494538).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Modified CO’322 does not teach that the reactor comprises a mineral reactor that produces H2 via a chemical reaction between magnesium and water.
Kirillov teaches reactor for producing hydrogen using water and magnesium (refer abstract, col. 2/lines 24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of modified CO’322 to use a reactor comprises a mineral reactor that produces H2 via a chemical reaction between magnesium and water to produce hydrogen efficiently as taught by Kirillov. With regard to the granular size, Kirillov teaches using magnesium in granular form. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CO20200014322A (hereinafter referred as CO’322, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Kirillov et al. (US 5494538).
Regarding claim 15, CO’322 teaches a water dispensing device (refer fig. 1, fig. 8), comprising:
a coupling to attach a water supply source to a structured water generator that receives the water and is configured to output structured water (Refer fig. 1/fig. 8 disclosing water supplied to filtration unit 40 and then connected to structuring unit 60), the structured water generator (Refer fig. 7) comprising:
a motor (66);
a vortex generator configured to rotate at a speed (the conical shaped tank 63 and blades 64 generate vortex);
a gas supply (80) configured to provide one or more gases;
a magnetizer (70) coupled to the structured water generator, the magnetizer being configured to receive the structured water from the structured water generator and to generate a magnetic field within the magnetizer to align the structured water in a direction by one or more magnets generating a magnetic field (refer page 9); and
a dispenser (100) coupled to the magnetizer (70), the dispenser being configured to dispense the structured water received from the magnetizer.
CO’322 discloses that the magnetized magnetization unit (70) has neodymium magnets and that the arrangement of neodymium magnets or other magnetic materials that are compatible with the specific design considerations for each case (Refer page 9).
CO’322 discloses that gasification unit 80 having a first gas supply module 81 and a second module of supply of gases 82 selected from gases such as oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen (Refer page 9). CO’322 also discloses that gasification unit may include means or units for performing electrolysis or other means for gas separation also means for gas storage such as cylinders or pressurized tank (refer page 9).
CO’322 does not disclose a reactor coupled to the structured water generator and the water supply source, the reactor being configured to generate MGO and H2 and transfer the MgO and H2 to the structure water generator.
Kirillov teaches reactor for producing hydrogen using water and magnesium (refer abstract, col. 2/lines 24-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of modified CO’322 to use a reactor comprises a mineral reactor that produces H2 via a chemical reaction between magnesium and water to produce hydrogen efficiently as taught by Kirillov.
Regarding claim 16, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. CO’322 teaches that the spiral tube has a conical shape (refer 7 disclosing conical shape).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified CO’322 teaches limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. Applicant admitted in paragraph [0107] that hydrogen generation by reaction of ball milled mixture of magnesium powder with two water-soluble salts (NaCl and KCl) in hot water, as disclosed by International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45(48), pp. 25890-25899 (2020), ISSN 0360-3199 (refer NPL citation 1 on IDS dated 04/26/2024). The document discloses stirring of magnesium granules and water (refer experimental procedure). Selecting what type of mixing to use would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights