DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following:
In line 3, “hydrogenated” should be “hydrogenate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
The following terms lack antecedent basis: “the container receptacle” (claim 20, line 2).
In claim 13, the phrase “generally adjacent” (2x) is a term of degree that does not have a well-defined meaning in the art and is not accompanied by any objective boundaries or standards in the claim or the specification for determining the scope of the limitation, rending the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 is also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
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 and 15 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) and an outlet (bottom side of 120 in the figure);
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 within the interior of the manifold (col. 6, lines 27-29); 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.
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 1-5, 7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Pirone (U.S. 20100300868 A1), hereinafter “Pirone”.
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.
Yu doesn’t specify that his pump is adapted to draw the mineral from the bottle, 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]. 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 and because simple substitution of parts for the same purpose is within ordinary skill.
As for claim 2, Yu teaches is manifold to extend vertically (see 120 of figure 2 and 300 of figure 3). As for claim 3, Yu teaches the pump having line connected adjacent to the bottom of the manifold (e.g. in figure 3, pump line 162 and 110 is connected to the bottom of the manifold 300 via 121 and 72). As for claim 4, Yu teaches the filter having a line 71 being connected adjacent to the bottom of the manifold 300 (via 72). As for claim 5, the outlet 304 of the manifold 300 is provided in the top portion of the manifold, wherein mixing would naturally occur during rising of the mixture.
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 13, Yu teaches a single line 72 for communicating both mineral and water to the bottom of the manifold but doesn’t specify separate inlets for the mineral and water. However, such is taught by Pirone. 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.
As for claim 14, the mineral and water mixes in the mixing tank 300 while rising.
As for claims 19-20, the limitations correspond to the apparatus of claims 2-5 and are taught by the modified Yu.
Claims 6, 8-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu or the modified Yu, either in further view of CN 105923858 A, hereinafter ‘858.
PNG
media_image2.png
497
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These claims differ from Yu or the modified Yu, since the applied art doesn’t specify the reverse osmosis unit or the ionizer. But such is taught by ‘858. ‘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. 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, 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 and 16-18].
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.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/532218 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the copending application anticipate the claims of the instant application, and because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779