DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 11/19/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 13-15 are canceled. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 reads “at least one a needle valve”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said secondary sediment filtration screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 3 reads “said conveyor configured to transport the empty bottle from said bottle washing station sequentially to each of said bottle washing station…”. It is unclear how the conveyor is configured to transport the empty bottle from said bottle washing station sequentially to the bottle washing station, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of Claim 3, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each said sediment filtration screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 reads “each said sediment filtration screen”, whereas Claim 1 reads “a primary sediment filtration screen”. It is unclear how many sediment filtration screens the drinking water system of Claim 1 comprises, rendering Claim 12 indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20220387934A1 (‘Mahe’) in view of European Publication EP2332584A1 (‘Pagliarini’) and in further view of Publication Removal of microplastic fibres in laundry wastewater by ceramic microfiltration: A case study (‘Tarte’, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 13 (2026) 101408) and in further view of Publication From the Well to the Bottle: Identifying Sources of Microplastics in Mineral Water (‘Weisser’, Water 2021, 13, 841).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Mahe teaches a drinking water system configured to filter source water to remove microplastic particulates and other impurities, to re-mineralize the filtered water, and to bottle the filtered mineral water (abstract), said drinking water system comprising:
a source water intake pipe (Fig. 14, [0102], line comprising;
a primary circulating pump (Fig. 14, [0102], pump 2010);
a pre-filtration unit (Fig. 14, [0102], 3-in-1 filtration system 2005) comprising:
a primary sediment filtration screen ([0069], sediment filters); and
at least one carbon filter ([0069], carbon filters) positioned to filter water received from said primary sediment filtration screen ([0069]);
a primary reverse osmosis unit comprising: a reverse osmosis membrane ([0069], reverse osmosis membrane) configured to remove microplastic particulates from the filtered water received from said prefiltration unit ([0087], pore size ranges from between 0.0001 micron and 0.001 micron);
a bottle filling unit, said bottle filling unit comprising: a dispensing nozzle configured to receive and to dispense microplastic-free filtered water from said primary reverse osmosis unit (Fig. 14, line comprising component “small pump”) into the interior of the bottle (Fig. 14, [0103-0104], reservoir 135); and
a remineralization station, said remineralization station comprising: a mineral storage area (Fig. 14, mineral tank/cartridge 2015), and a mineral dispenser nozzle (Fig. 14, [0102], pump 2020) configured to dispense a predetermined quantity of minerals into the bottle with microplastic free water ([0104]).
Mahe does not teach that the reverse osmosis membrane is a ceramic reverse osmosis membrane, a secondary reverse osmosis unit comprising: a ceramic reverse osmosis membrane configured to remove microplastic particulates from the filtered water received from said secondary sediment filtration screen; and a bottle washing station, said bottle washing station comprising: a cleaning nozzle configured to receive and to spray microplastic-free filtered water from said secondary reverse osmosis unit into the interior of an empty bottle positioned beneath said cleaning nozzle, to rinse microplastic particles out of the interior of the empty bottle.
Pagliarini also relates to a drinking system ([0002]) configured to bottle the drink ([0015]), including a secondary reverse osmosis unit comprising: a reverse osmosis membrane configured to remove microplastic particulates from the filtered water received from said secondary sediment filtration screen ([0007]);
a bottle washing station ([0006]), said bottle washing station comprising: a cleaning nozzle configured to receive and to spray microplastic-free filtered water from said secondary reverse osmosis unit into the interior of an empty bottle ([0023]) to rinse particles out of the interior of the empty bottle; and
dispensing into the interior of the rinsed bottle ([0018]).
Weisser also relates to a drinking water system configured to filter source water to remove particulates and other impurities (Fig. 1), and to bottle the filtered mineral water (Fig. 1), including spraying water into the interior of an empty bottle positioned beneath said cleaning nozzle, to rinse microplastic particles out of the interior of the empty bottle (Fig. 1 and pg. 12/last Pr-pg. 13/Pr1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the drinking water system of Mahe to include a secondary reverse osmosis membrane unit and a bottle washing station, as demonstrated by Pagliarini, in order to obtain water with suitable characteristics for subsequent use in rinsing (Pagliarini, [0007]). Note that both Mahe and Pagliarini involve beverages (Mahe, abstract and Pagliarini, [0002]). It would have been obvious for the reverse osmosis membranes of the combination of Mage and Pagliarini to be ceramic reverse osmosis membranes, as demonstrated by Tarte, because although both polymeric and ceramic membranes are widely employed in wastewater treatment plants, evidence favors ceramic membranes for maintaining high-throughput treatment in long-term operation (Tarte, section 1. Introduction, Pr2. Note publication dates of references cited in this paragroup include years 2020-2023). It would have been obvious for the bottle washing station of the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini and Tarte to spray water into the interior of an empty bottle positioned beneath the cleaning nozzle to rinse microplastic particles out of the interior of the empty bottle, as demonstrated by Weisser, because water jetting seems to be successful in minimizing carryover of microplastic particles into the bottles (Weisser, pg. 12/last Pr-pg. 13/Pr1).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: further comprising: a sealing unit (Weisser, Fig. 1), said sealing unit configured to cap the bottle containing the re-mineralized microplastic free water (Weisser, Fig. 1).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20220387934A1 (‘Mahe’), European Publication EP2332584A1 (‘Pagliarini’), Publication Removal of microplastic fibres in laundry wastewater by ceramic microfiltration: A case study (‘Tarte’, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 13 (2026) 101408) and Publication From the Well to the Bottle: Identifying Sources of Microplastics in Mineral Water (‘Weisser’, Water 2021, 13, 841) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20070163212A1 (‘Varhaniovsky’) and U.S. Publication US20120012227A1 (‘Schubert’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 3-5, the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte and Weisser teaches the drinking water system of Claim 2, except a conveyor, said conveyor configured to transport the empty bottle from said bottle washing station sequentially to each of said bottle washing station, said bottle filling unit, said re-mineralization station, and said sealing unit.
Varhaniovsky also relates to a drinking water system configured to filter source water ([0101]) and to bottle the filtered water (abstract), including a conveyor (Fig. 1A, [0027] and [0031], conveyor arrangements 103, 104 and 107), said conveyor configured to transport the empty bottle from said bottle washing station sequentially to each of said bottle washing station (Fig. 1A, [0027], rinsing station 101), said bottle filling unit (Fig. 1A, [0027], filling machine 105), and said sealing unit (Fig. 1A, [0031], closing station 106).
Schubert also relates to a drinking water system configured to bottle the water (abstract), including a conveyor (Fig. 1, [0027], conveyor 24), said conveyor configured to transport the empty bottle sequentially to each of said bottle filling unit (Fig. 1, [0016], filler 18), said re-mineralization station (Fig. 1, [0019], dispenser 16), and said sealing unit (Fig. 1, [0016], sealer 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte and Weisser to include a conveyor, as demonstrated by Varhaniovsky and Schubert, because Mahe, Varhaniovsky and Schubert all involve packaging beverages (Mahe, [0092]; Varhaniovsky, abstract and Schubert, abstract).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 4: further comprising: a storage area (Varhaniovsky, Fig. 1A, [0032], filled, closed and labeled bottles are conveyed to different locations), said conveyor further configured to transport the bottle containing the re-mineralized microplastic free water from said sealing unit to said storage area (Varhaniovsky, [0032]).
Claim 5: further comprising: a storage tank (Mahe, Fig. 14, [0102], ; and
one or more valves (Mahe, [0102], dispensed as desired by the user);
wherein said one or more valves are configured to divert the microplastic-free filtered water from each of said primary reverse osmosis unit to said storage tank (Mahe, Fig. 14, [0102]) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more valves of the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky and Schubert to be configured to divert water from the second reverse osmosis unit, as demonstrated by Mahe, to allow collected purified water to be dispensed automatically as desired by the user, thus the user no longer needs to wait for the reverse osmosis process to occur each time (Mahe, [0102])).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20220387934A1 (‘Mahe’), European Publication EP2332584A1 (‘Pagliarini’), Publication Removal of microplastic fibres in laundry wastewater by ceramic microfiltration: A case study (‘Tarte’, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 13 (2026) 101408), Publication From the Well to the Bottle: Identifying Sources of Microplastics in Mineral Water (‘Weisser’, Water 2021, 13, 841), U.S. Publication US20070163212A1 (‘Varhaniovsky’) and U.S. Publication US20120012227A1 (‘Schubert’) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20180080952A1 (‘Lehtonen’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 6-10, the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky and Schubert teaches the drinking water system of Claim 5, including that said one or more valves are configured to divert the microplastic-free filtered water to said storage tank (Mahe, [0102]), except for in response to a decreased operating speed of any one or more of: said bottle washing station, said bottle filling unit, said re-mineralization unit, and said sealing unit.
Lehtonen also relates to a system configured to filter source water to remove particulates and other impurities ([0027]) and to bottle the filtered water (abstract), including diverting filtered water to said storage tank (Fig. 16, [0210], hot water generator storage 1620) in response to a decreased operating speed of any one or more of: said bottle washing station (Fig. 16, [0210]), said bottle filling unit, said re-mineralization unit, and said sealing unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divert the microplastic-free filtered water to said storage tank of the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky and Schubert in response to a decreased operating speed, as demonstrated by Lehtonen, to provide sufficient pressure and flow (Lehtonen, [0210]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 7: at least one pressure gauge configured to measure water pressure (Varhaniovsky, [0101], Ser. No. 10/930678, [0079-0080] and [0086]); and
at least one a needle valve configured to control water pressure based on the measured water pressure from said at least one pressure gauge (Varhaniovsky, [0101], Ser. No. 10/930678, [0079-0080] and [0086]) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one pressure gauge and at least one needle valve, as demonstrated by Varhaniovsky, in the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky, Schubert and Lehtonen to minimize changes in pressure (Varhaniovsky, [0101], Ser. No. 10/930678, [0091]).
Claim 8: further comprising: a bottling station pressure pump (Mahe, [0104], Fig. 1, pump 125).
Claim 9: said prefiltration unit comprises a secondary sediment filtration screen positioned to filter water received from said at least one carbon filter (Mahe, [0069], sediment and carbon filters).
Claim 10: said ceramic reverse osmosis membrane of each of said primary reverse osmosis unit and said secondary reverse osmosis unit is configured to remove microplastic particulates with a filtration accuracy of 0.0001 (Mahe, [0087], pore size that ranges from between 0.0001 micron and 0.001 micron).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20220387934A1 (‘Mahe’), European Publication EP2332584A1 (‘Pagliarini’), Publication Removal of microplastic fibres in laundry wastewater by ceramic microfiltration: A case study (‘Tarte’, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 13 (2026) 101408), Publication From the Well to the Bottle: Identifying Sources of Microplastics in Mineral Water (‘Weisser’, Water 2021, 13, 841), U.S. Publication US20070163212A1 (‘Varhaniovsky’), U.S. Publication US20120012227A1 (‘Schubert’) and U.S. Publication US20180080952A1 (‘Lehtonen’) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US9169136B1 (‘Morgan’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky, Schubert and Lehtonen teaches the drinking water system of Claim 6, except each said at least one carbon filter is formed of a solid block of compressed carbon material configured to filter particles 5 microns or smaller.
Morgan also relates to a drinking water system configured to filter source water to remove particulates and other impurities and to bottle the filtered water (abstract), including that each said at least one carbon filter is formed of a solid block of compressed carbon material configured to filter particles 5 microns or smaller (Fig. 1, C7/L19-31, carbon block filter 148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each of the carbon filters of the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky, Schubert and Lehtonen to be formed of a solid block of compressed carbon material configured to filter particles 5 microns or smaller, as demonstrated by Morgan, to remove the smallest particles that may have passed through the filter and been transported to this point in the water treatment system (Morgan, C7/L19-25).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20220387934A1 (‘Mahe’), European Publication EP2332584A1 (‘Pagliarini’), Publication Removal of microplastic fibres in laundry wastewater by ceramic microfiltration: A case study (‘Tarte’, Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 13 (2026) 101408), Publication From the Well to the Bottle: Identifying Sources of Microplastics in Mineral Water (‘Weisser’, Water 2021, 13, 841), U.S. Publication US20070163212A1 (‘Varhaniovsky’), U.S. Publication US20120012227A1 (‘Schubert’), U.S. Publication US20180080952A1 (‘Lehtonen’) and U.S. Patent US9169136B1 (‘Morgan’) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20210253449A1 (‘Katz’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky, Schubert, Lehtonen and Morgan teaches the drinking water system of Claim 11, including that each said sediment filtration screen is formed with openings of 5 microns or smaller (Morgan, C4/L47-61), except that each said sediment filtration screen is formed of 300 series steel.
Katz also relates to a water system (abstract), including that each said sediment filtration screen is formed of steel ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each said sediment filtration screen of the combination of Mahe, Pagliarini, Tarte, Weisser, Varhaniovsky, Schubert, Lehtonen and Morgan to be formed as steel, as demonstrated by Katz, because steel is scale and corrosion resistant and could be punched or woven into the desired sized screen filters (Katz, [0070]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 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, 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights