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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/457,508 application filed on August 29, 2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered. All claims are directed toward an apparatus.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 9, the comma after ‘hereinafter’ does not appear necessary. The entire phrase “(hereinafter, referred to as "pH-controlling filter")” could probably be simplified to: (pH-controlling filter).
Claims 2-8, 10 and 11 depend on claims 1 and 9.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 follows, with the underlined portions either causing or intended to assist in an understanding of the indefiniteness rejection.
Claim 1: A filter for controlling a pH of purified water (hereinafter, referred to as "pH-controlling filter"), the pH-controlling filter comprising:
a water permeable filter having a hollow formed in a center of a cross-section from one end to the other end;
a lower stopper closing a lower end of the water permeable filter;
a filling unit inserted into the hollow of the water permeable filter to form an inner space, the filling unit having an inlet through which the purified water passing through the water permeable filter flows into the inner space and an outlet through which the purified water passing through the inner space flows out; and
control particles filled in the inner space of the filling unit to adjust a pH of the purified water passing through the inner space of the filling unit and comprising OH group-generating particles configured to supplement the purified water passing through the inner space with OH groups.
The phrase “a center of a cross-section from one end to the other end” is unclear because it does not state a reference point for the cross section. Is this cross section the top of the water permeable filter or could it be ay point in the filter. Support for an arbitrary cross section location must be provided in the original disclosure.
The claim states that the filling unit forms an inner space, which is unclear. It appears that an inner space or “a hollow” already exists and runs from one end to the other end of the filter.
Relatedly, based on the disclosure and figures, the control particles are situated in the filling unit and the filling unit is located in the hollow. Therefore, the language “control particles filled in the inner space of the filling unit” could be confusing. Thus, the relationship or distinction between ‘the hollow’ and ‘the inner space’ should be clarified.
In the claim, should OH be OH- or is the OH part of a compound as opposed to stand alone OH- ions? The specification may also need correction or clarification on this issue.
Claims 6-9 includes “inner space” language and thus has the same issue as claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7: These claims use the phrases ‘lower surface,’ ‘upper surface’ and ‘upper side.’ The difference between ‘lower surface’ and ‘lower end,’ noted in claim 1, should be clarified.
Claim 6: Since an inlet is defined differently than slits in the specification, a closed lower surface implies no inlet, which seems inconsistent with claim 1 that included an inlet.
Claims 7 and 8: The language “the lower stopper is opened” in claim 7, and “the inner circumferential surface of the hollow are opened,” in claim 8, rather than “is open,” appears to suggest an operation or manipulative step rather than an existing structure. The phrase “is open” in claim 7 is also consistent with the existence of “an inlet.” Also, the use of “are opened” in claim 8 suggests a plurality of inner circumferential surfaces, which is not recited in the claim.
The phrase “the inner circumferential surface of the hollow” lacks antecedent basis.
The meaning of every term or phrase used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. See MPEP §2173.05(a). According to MPEP §2173, "The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent . . . If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, would be appropriate. See Morton Int 'l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP §2173.02.
Claims 2-8 and 10-11 depend on claims 1 and 9.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgens et al. (US5662799; Hudgens) in view of Kelly et al. (US 20040091654; Kelly) and Walder et al. (US6,660,167; Walder).
Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. The analysis may consider the alternate concepts of various potential embodiments in a particular reference.
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a filter for controlling a pH of purified water (pH-controlling filter; controlling pH is an intended use and a suitable additive can control pH, although this is not discussed; coolant can be water), the pH-controlling filter (Abstract, Figs. 1, 2) comprising:
a water permeable filter 23 having a hollow 112 formed in a center of a cross-section from one end to the other end (col. 6, ln. 50 – col. 7, ln. 2);
a lower stopper 50 closing a lower end of the water permeable filter (Id.);
a filling unit 67 inserted into the hollow of the water permeable filter to form an inner space 34, 74, the filling unit having an inlet 66, 73 through which the purified water passing through the water permeable filter flows into the inner space and an outlet 32 through which the purified water passing through the inner space flows out (col. 6, ln. 50 – col. 7, ln. 33); and
control particles 39 filled in the inner space of the filling unit to adjust a pH of the purified water passing through the inner space of the filling unit and comprising particles configured to supplement the purified water passing through the inner space.
Therefore, Hudgens discloses the claimed invention, except for
noting the pH control; and
noting that the control particles are OH group-generating particles configured to supplement the purified water passing through the inner space with OH groups.
Kelly discloses a container for releasing a chemical additive into a coolant composition comprises a coolant-impermeable casing having a hollow interior and an additive composition comprising at least one coolant soluble additive. The additive is held within the container by at least one coolant-permeable element provided at or near an opening in the casing and is effective to provide for release of additive(s) into the coolant composition (Abstract). Kelly states that coolants can include water and another substance (Kelly, [0006]).
Kelly explains that chemical additives can include, but are not limited to, anti-foulants, anti-scaling agents, corrosion inhibitors, pH buffering agents, microbicides, and the like.
Walder discloses a method for precipitating or flocculating substances out of a solution, the solution is brought into contact with at least one ion exchange material having a surface provided with functional groups loaded with counter ions (Abstract). One can control the relevant reaction by the pH value (col. 1, lines 11-22). The ion exchange material allows the directed addition of the components required alone for the precipitation reaction, for example, for the decarbonization of calcium carbonate-containing water, where the principle of decarbonization of calcium carbonate-containing water is that the pH value is raised to shift the calcium carbonate/carbonic acid equilibrium such that the Ca2+ ions will precipitate in the form of calcium carbonate (col. 2, lines 13-26). Conventionally, the pH value increase is achieved by adding Ca(OH)2 NaOH and/or NaCO3 (Id.). For certain processes, the combination of dosage of pH-controlling ions (for example, anionic exchangers of the OH- form) and flocculation agents (for example, cationic exchangers in the Fe2+ form) is expedient (col. 2, ln. 66 – col. 3, ln. 27).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ suitable pH control particles for the intended use, including the use of appropriate OH group-generating particles configured to supplement the purified water passing through the inner space with OH groups, since such particles could be used judiciously to control pH where desired, as implied in Kelly ([0002], noting coolant additives as pH buffering agents) and Walden (col. 2, ln. 66 – col. 3, ln. 2).
Regarding claims 2-5, Hudgens, Kelly and Walden combined discloses or suggests the pH-controlling filter of claim 1, except wherein the OH group-generating particles are ceramic balls comprising magnesium or potassium.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable particles that can promote the desired effect, including ceramic balls comprising magnesium or potassium.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3: The control particles further comprise a cation exchange resin for supplementing cations in the purified water passing through the inner space of the filling unit (claim 2 analysis; Walden, col. 1, lines 50-65); Claim 4: The cation exchange resin comprises at least one of H+ form and Na+ form (claim 2 analysis); Claim 5: The control particles are filled in a volume of 30% to 80% of the volume of the inner space of the filling unit (would be obvious to fill to a suitable level).
Regarding claims 6-8, Hudgens, Kelly and Walden combined discloses or suggests the filter of claim 1, wherein the filling unit is disposed in the hollow of the water permeable filter to form its inner space,
its lower surface facing the lower stopper is closed (Hudgens, Figs 1, 2),
its upper surface is opened to discharge the purified water in its inner space to an upper side of the hollow of the water permeable filter (Id.), except
its side surface facing an inner circumferential surface of the hollow is formed with a plurality of slits so as to be opened.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiments with different inlet and outlet placements on the filling unit, whether on the below, upper or side surfaces, and to thereby use appropriately place inlets and outlets, including slits where suitable, for efficient ingress of the filter treated water and egress of the OH treated water.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 7: The filling unit is disposed in the hollow of the water permeable filter to form its inner space,
its lower surface facing the lower stopper is opened to allow the purified water to flow into the inner space,
its side surface facing the inner circumferential surface of the hollow is closed, and
its upper surface is opened to discharge the purified water in its inner space to an upper side of the hollow of the water permeable filter (claim 6 analysis); Claim 8: The filling unit is disposed in the hollow of the water permeable filter to form its inner space,
its lower surface facing the lower stopper and its side surface facing the inner circumferential surface of the hollow are opened to allow the purified water to flow into its inner space, and
its upper surface is opened to discharge the purified water in its inner space to an upper side of the hollow of the water permeable filter (claim 6 analysis).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgens et al. (US5662799; Hudgens) in view of Kelly et al. (US 20040091654; Kelly), Walder et al. (US6,660,167; Walder) and Poffet et al. (US20140209544; Poffet).
Claim 9 is an independent apparatus claim that includes many of the same major elements recited in claim 1, and further includes a reverse osmosis filter. As such, in the interest of convenience and brevity, Examiner applies the claim 1 analysis herein, without repeating the text in its entirety.
Therefore, regarding claim 9, Hudgens, Kelly and Walden combined discloses or suggests a water purifier comprising:
a filter for controlling a pH of purified water (pH-controlling filter), which is installed on the downstream side of the reverse osmosis filter and configured to adjust the pH of the purified water filtered through the reverse osmosis filter (claim 1 analysis),
wherein the pH-controlling filter comprises:
a water permeable filter having a hollow formed in a center of a cross-section from one end to the other end;
a lower stopper closing a lower end of the water permeable filter;
a filling unit inserted into the hollow of the water permeable filter to form an inner space, the filling unit having an inlet through which the purified water passing through the water permeable filter flows into the inner space and an outlet through which the purified water passing through the inner space flows out; and
control particles filled in the inner space of the filling unit to adjust a pH of the purified water passing through the inner space of the filling unit and comprising OH group-generating particles configured to supplement the purified water passing through the inner space with OH groups (claim 1 analysis).
Thus, Hudgens, Kelly and Walden combined discloses or suggests the claimed invention, except
a reverse osmosis filter for filtering raw water; and
the water permeable filter is installed on the downstream side of the reverse osmosis filter and is configured to adjust the pH of the purified water filtered through the reverse osmosis filter.
Poffet discloses a process for treating water and the use of calcium carbonate in such a process. In particular, the present invention is directed to a process for remineralization of water comprising the steps of providing feed water, providing an aqueous solution of calcium carbonate, wherein the aqueous solution of calcium carbonate comprises dissolved calcium carbonate and reaction species thereof, and combining the feed water and the aqueous calcium carbonate solution (Abstract). Water obtained by processes such as reverse osmosis is very soft and has a low pH value because of the lack of pH-buffering salts, and thus, tends to be highly reactive and, unless treated, it can create severe corrosion difficulties during its transport in conventional pipelines ([0003]). For the remineralization of water, one may use a saturated calcium hydroxide solution, commonly named lime water or other hydroxides ([0006], [0144], [0148]). One can also use calcium carbonate particles to adjust the pH value ([0021]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the filter downstream of a reverse osmosis filter to increase the pH with OH (or OH particles) as desired, and as recommended by Poffet.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hudgens, Kelly, Walden and Poffet combined discloses or suggests the water purifier of claim 9, except further comprising:
a water outlet nozzle configured to discharge the purified water having a pH adjusted by the pH-controlling filter; and
a water outlet flow path configured to guide the purified water passing through the pH- controlling filter to the water outlet nozzle.
However, a nozzle is merely a type of outlet and a tank is a traditional means for storing purified water.
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with additional treatment accessories including a purified water tank and a water outlet nozzle, and to employ a purified water tank and suitable water outlet nozzle with a water outlet flow path as claimed, as a traditional means of storing and dispensing the purified water.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 11: The water purifier of claim 11, further comprising:
a purified water tank in which the purified water having the pH adjusted in the pH-controlling filter is stored; and
a purified water guide flow path for guiding the purified water passing through the pH- controlling filter to the purified water tank (claim 10 analysis).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.