DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same prior art references.
On pages 6-7, Applicant summarizes the previous rejections, and also summarizes the amendments made to the claims. Then, on pages 7-8, Applicant describes several features of the claimed invention, and the benefits associated with said features. On pages 8-10, Applicant describes the disclosed invention of anticipatory reference Yu (U.S. 10,589,977 B2), arguing that the connection pipe 120 which is equivalent to the claimed manifold, is merely a pipe having a single inlet and a pair of outlets which are located at different positions in relation to the manifold than those claimed. However, the Examiner notes that the water/liquid flows through line 71 and through line 110 to two different inlets of connection pipe 120 and also has an outlet leading to spigot 73, hence there are two inlets and a single outlet as claimed. Furthermore the Examiner notes that the use of the language “positioned adjacent to” either a “top” or “bottom” of the manifold is broad, since the disclosed manifold can have a location that is not at the top or bottom but is still next to said top or bottom, not directly in the locations as desired. For these reasons, the Examiner finds these arguments by Applicant unpersuasive.
Then, on pages 10-11, Applicant argues against the disclosure using the mixing tank 300 of Yu, arguing that there is a single inlet and a single outlet for the tank 300. However, the Examiner notes that the mixing tank 300 is not the manifold, the connection pipe 120 is in regard to Yu. Thus, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose an ionizer. The Examiner notes that while Yu does not disclose an ionizer, previous secondary reference CN 105923858 A, hereinafter ‘858, discloses this limitation instead. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that previous secondary reference Pirone does not disclose any structure resembling the claimed manifold. Again, the Examiner notes that Yu discloses the manifold for the reasons already cited above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 12, Applicant argues that the mixing tank of Yu does not demonstrate a thorough mixing of the separate components, or filling by gravity, or lack of turbulence. However, the Examiner notes that these features are not required or claimed. Only mixing of some sort is required, as already disclosed in Yu. Thus, the Examiner finds this argument also unpersuasive. The same remarks apply to independent Claim 12 as well.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that the dependent claims should be allowable based on the arguments against the independent claims. For the reasons already stated above, the Examiner finds this observation unpersuasive.
The Examiner has also withdrawn the previous double-patenting rejection based on the amendments made to the claims, which obviate said rejection.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 15, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (U.S. 10,589,977 B2), hereinafter “Yu”.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 12, Yu teaches a process for mixing a mineral or supplement with filtered tap water, the process comprising:
providing a manifold (“connection pipe 120 may function as a mineral water generation unit, in which minerals are mixed with drinking water”, col. 6, lines 27-29) having a first inlet (top of 120 in the figure) and a second inlet (left side of 120 in the figure) separately adjacent a bottom of the manifold, (a line 71 being connected adjacent to the bottom of the manifold 300 (via 72) and e.g. in figure 3, pump line 162 and 110 is connected to the bottom of the manifold 300 via 121 and 72), and an outlet (bottom side of 120 in the figure), the manifold extending in a vertical orientation having a height dimension greater than a thickness dimension, (the total height of the manifold 120 is bigger than the thickness of each conduit of the manifold 120, see figure 3);
passing the filtered tap water (water from tap 10 is filtered in figures 20) into the first inlet of the manifold and into an interior of the manifold;
passing the mineral or supplement (from bottle 140) into the second inlet of the manifold (via microchannel 120);
filling the manifold with the filtered tap water from the first inlet and the mineral or supplement from the second inlet so as to mix the filtered tap water and the mineral or supplement as the filtered tap water and the mineral or supplement rise within the interior of the manifold (col. 6, lines 27-29; and the mineral and water mixes in the mixing tank 300 while rising); and
discharging the mixture of the filtered tap water and the mineral or supplement through the outlet (at 72) of the manifold.
As for claim 15, Yu teaches a pretreatment step via filters 20 to produce the filtered tap water.
As for claims 19-20, The process of claim 12, further comprising: pumping the mineral or supplement from a bottle toward the second inlet of the manifold; and pumping the filtered tap water toward the first inlet of the manifold, (mineral container 140 directed to port 121 of connection pipe 120 and filtered water directed through line 71 to port of connection pipe 120, See Figure 2, Yu), and The process of claim 12, further comprising: loading a bottle containing the mineral or supplement into a container receptacle assembly, the step of passing the mineral or supplement comprising: drawing the mineral or supplement from the bottle prior to passing to the second inlet of the manifold, (mineral container 140 directed to port 121 of connection pipe 120 and filtered water directed through line 71 to port of connection pipe 120, See Figure 2, Yu).
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 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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of CN 105923858 A, hereinafter ‘858.
Regarding Claim 16, Yu discloses the process of claim 15, but does not disclose further comprising: passing the filtered tap water from the pretreatment filter to a reverse osmosis filter; and producing a pure water output and a brine output from the reverse osmosis filter, wherein the pure water output passes to the first inlet of the manifold (the brine side and the purified water side of a reverse osmosis filter 9, See paragraph [0020] & [0031], ‘858).
‘858 further comprising: passing the filtered tap water from the pretreatment filter to a reverse osmosis filter; and producing a pure water output and a brine output from the reverse osmosis filter, wherein the pure water output passes to the first inlet of the manifold (the brine side and the purified water side of a reverse osmosis filter 9, See paragraph [0020] & [0031], ‘858).
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further comprising: passing the filtered tap water from the pretreatment filter to a reverse osmosis filter; and producing a pure water output and a brine output from the reverse osmosis filter, wherein the pure water output passes to the first inlet of the manifold of ‘858, since ‘858 teaches the benefit of producing hydrogen water and water that can be used for different purposes and different functions of a modern house hold intelligent water. Upon modification, the tap water passing through the filters 20 would then pass through the reverse osmosis filter, the purified water would then be combined with mineral in the mixing tank before being delivered to the ionizer to produce the hydrogen water. The brine would be delivered away via brine outlet 2 [as in claims 16-17].
PNG
media_image2.png
497
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Yu discloses the process of claim 12 but does not disclose further comprising: ionizing the discharged mixture from the outlet of the manifold so as to produce a hydrogenated water output.
‘858 discloses further comprising: ionizing the discharged mixture from the outlet of the manifold so as to produce a hydrogenated water output (See paragraph [0020] & [0031], ‘858).
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further comprising: passing the filtered tap water from the pretreatment filter to a reverse osmosis filter; and producing a pure water output and a brine output from the reverse osmosis filter, wherein the pure water output passes to the first inlet of the manifold of ‘858, since ‘858 teaches the benefit of producing hydrogen water and water that can be used for different purposes and different functions of a modern house hold intelligent water. Upon modification, the tap water passing through the filters 20 would then pass through the reverse osmosis filter, the purified water would then be combined with mineral in the mixing tank before being delivered to the ionizer to produce the hydrogen water. The brine would be delivered away via brine outlet 2 [as in claim 18].
Claims 1, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Pirone (U.S. 20100300868 A1), hereinafter “Pirone”, in further view of CN 105923858 A, hereinafter ‘858.
Claim 1 is the corresponding apparatus to the method invention of claim 12 and Yu teaches the housing 2, inlet 10/11 for tap water, filter 20, container receptacle 150 having a bottle 140 received therein and pump 160 cause mineral within the bottle to be added to manifold 120, wherein the manifold is configured to mix the mineral enter via 121 with the filtered water entering via 71, and having a manifold outlet 72, said manifold connected to the filter separate from the outlet of the pump, the connections of said manifold to the outlet of the pump and to the filter being adjacent to a bottom of said manifold, (a line 71 being connected adjacent to the bottom of the manifold 300 (via 72) and e.g. in figure 3, pump line 162 and 110 is connected to the bottom of the manifold 300 via 121 and 72) and such that said manifold has a height dimension that is greater than a thickness dimension, (the total height of the manifold 120 is bigger than the thickness of each conduit of the manifold 120, see figure 3).
Yu does not specify that his pump is adapted to draw the mineral from the bottle, or an ionizer positioned in said housing and connected to the outlet of said manifold, said ionizer adapted to hydrogenate the mixture passed from the outlet of said manifold, said ionizer having an outlet adapted to pass the hydrogenated mixture outwardly of said housing, said ionizer interposed between said manifold and a wall of said housing or separate inlets for the mineral and water (filter and outlet of pump).
However, Pirone teaches separate inlets (30a-3d) for the mineral and water. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the line 72 of Yu to be separate inlets to the bottom as in Pirone, since such would be simple substitution of parts for the same purpose—inputting each constituent to be mixed. Also, Yu teaches his mixing connector 120 (of figure 2) to have separate inlets but such is taught by Pirone. Pirone also teaches a system using a pump P2 for combining a mineral drawn from supply 40 with a water within a mixing tank 30 [as in claim 1], and Pirone teaches separate inlets (30a-3d) for the mineral and water.
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have drawing pump of Pirone for the pump 160 of Yu since both references teach a pump using to mineralize water since such would be simple substitution of parts for the same purpose—inputting each constituent to be mixed and because simple substitution of parts for the same purpose is within ordinary skill.
‘858 teaches an ionizer 16 including compartments divided by a membrane 17, wherein the compartments are respectively in communication with the brine side and the purified water side of a reverse osmosis filter 9, said ionizer adapted to hydrogenate the mixture passed from the outlet of said manifold, said ionizer having an outlet adapted to pass the hydrogenated mixture outwardly of said housing, (See paragraph [0020] & [0031]), said ionizer interposed between said manifold and a wall of said housing or separate inlets for the mineral and water (filter and outlet of pump), (ionizer 16 between any of components 5, 12 or 13 (equivalent to manifold/connection pipe 120 of Yu) and outputs 1/2 (equivalent to spout 73 of Yu), hence between manifold and interior wall of housing).
PNG
media_image2.png
497
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the reverse osmosis unit 9 and the ionizer 16 of ‘858, said ionizer adapted to hydrogenate the mixture passed from the outlet of said manifold, said ionizer having an outlet adapted to pass the hydrogenated mixture outwardly of said housing, said ionizer interposed between said manifold and a wall of said housing or separate inlets for the mineral and water (filter and outlet of pump) since ‘858 teaches the benefit of producing hydrogen water and water that can be used for different purposes and different functions of a modern house hold intelligent water. Upon modification, the tap water passing through the filters 20 would then pass through the reverse osmosis filter, the purified water would then be combined with mineral in the mixing tank before being delivered to the ionizer to produce the hydrogen water. The brine would be delivered away via brine outlet 2 [as in claims 6, 8-10].
As for claim 7, Pirone teaches multiple pumps P1-P7, for delivery water through the system as necessary including through a carbon filter 29. Having a pump in the invention of Yu for pressurizing the tap water would have been obvious when tap water pressure is insufficient to pump water through the filters (e.g. as the filter become clogged).
As for claim 11, as shown above, the modified Yu teaches various pumps for conveying fluid. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the pump as a diaphragm pump or a peristaltic pump, as these are well-known types of pumps commonly used for transferring liquids in fluid handling systems. The selection of a particular pump type from a known class of pumps represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
