DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/02/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims recite “PCS”, which is an acronym of a term not previously recited in the relevant claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The term “PCS corona discharge” in claims 3 and 9 is not a term in the art and is not defined in the specification as to what “PCS” means in the context of corona discharge. For compact prosecution purposes, the term “PCS corona discharge” will be interpreted as a general corona discharge that produces ozone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. Claims 3 and 9 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the term “PCS corona discharge” is unclear. There is no indication within the specification as to what “PCS” is and the term “PCS corona discharge” is not a term known in the art. For compact prosecution purposes, the term “PCS corona discharge” will be interpreted as a general corona discharge that produces ozone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston et al. (US 9193607 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnston teaches a water ozonation system comprising (20, Fig. 1):
an ozone generator including a corona discharge unit (ozone generator 30, Fig. 1 and col.2, last line) configured to provide ozonated air as an output (“produces ozone from oxygen in the ambient air”, col.3, lines 4-5);
a tubing (conduit 34, Fig. 1) having a first end coupled to the output of the corona discharge unit (conduit 34 portion directly adjacent to ozone generator 30, Fig. 1) and configured to deliver the ozonated air to a second end (end portion of conduit 102, Fig. 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
108
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an injector assembly (see drawing above, Fig. 1) having a suction port coupled to the second end of the tubing (vacuum port 72, Fig. 1) and in communication with a Venturi tube (Venturi tube 62, Fig. 1) having an input (64, Fig. 1) and an output (70, Fig. 1), such that flow of liquid from the input to the output results in a suction being formed through the suction port to thereby draw the ozonated air into the liquid flowing through the Venturi tube (“As a result of increased water velocity immediately downstream of the inlet cone 66, a vacuum is generated at a vacuum port 72, which is employed to draw a gaseous mixture of air and ozone into water flowing through the aspirator 60”, Fig. 1 and col.3, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 2, Johnston teaches wherein the corona discharge unit (ozone generator 30, Fig. 1) further includes an input configured to allow air to be drawn in (air inlet 32, Fig. 1) due to the ozonated air being drawn to the Venturi tube (ozonated airflow in conduit 34 and 102/104 denoted by arrows, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Johnston teaches wherein the corona discharge unit (ozone generator 30, Fig. 1) is configured to generate ozone through a PCS corona discharge ozone generation process (“the corona discharge ozone generator 30 employs a high voltage power supply (not shown) which generates a voltage applied across glass dielectric plates (not shown) to develop a corona discharge, which then produces ozone from oxygen in the ambient air”, col.3, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Johnston teaches wherein the input of the Venturi tube (inlet cone 66, Fig. 1) is configured to be coupled to a water source (cold water from water inlet 22, Fig. 1).
The limitation of “the output of the Venturi tube is configured to be coupled to a water treatment system” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Johnston and the Venturi tube output of Johnston is capable of being coupled to a water treatment system. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Johnston teaches an output of the Venturi tube (outlet cone 68, Fig. 1) in communication with a providing ozonated water to appliances (e.g., washing machine, see abstract) via an ozonated water outlet (24, Fig. 1), and further mentions an auxiliary water outlet (178, Fig. 1) having a cap (180, Fig. 1) used to “provide ozonated water to something other than a washing machine” (col.5, lines 10-11), implying that connection to any water delivery/treatment means is possible.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the Venturi tube is configured such that water pressure at the input is greater than water pressure at a constricted portion of the Venturi tube” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Johnston and the Venturi tube of Johnston is capable of having a water pressure higher at the input than the constricted portion. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Johnston teaches an input of the Venturi tube (inlet cone 66, Fig. 1) and a constricted portion of the Venturi tube (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image2.png
130
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where water flows from the inlet cone, through the constricted portion, and through the outlet cone, which is structurally identical to what the instant claim is referencing. Thus, the pressure being higher at the inlet cone than the constricted portion is an intrinsic result of the aforementioned structure. Regarding claim 7, Johnston teaches a water system (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a water treatment system (20, Fig. 1) configured to receive water from a source (water inlet 22 receiving cold water, Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
108
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an injector assembly (see drawing above) including an input (inlet 64, Fig. 1) in communication with the source (cold water from cold water inlet 22, Fig. 1) and an output (70, Fig. 1) in communication with the water treatment system (outlet 70 is part of the water treatment system 20, Fig. 1), a Venturi tube implemented between the input and the output (Venturi tube 62, Fig. 1), and a suction port (72, Fig. 1), such that flow of water from the input to the output results in a suction being formed at the suction port (“As a result of increased water velocity immediately downstream of the inlet cone 66, a vacuum is generated at a vacuum port 72, which is employed to draw a gaseous mixture of air and ozone into water flowing through the aspirator 60”, Fig. 1 and col.3, lines 39-43); and
an ozone generator (30, Fig. 1) having an output (conduit 102, Fig. 1) in communication with the suction port of the injector assembly (conduit 102 is in communication with vacuum port 72, Fig. 1), such that ozonated air generated by the ozone generator is drawn into the Venturi tube by the suction and thereby introduced to the flow of water to the water treatment system (“As a result of increased water velocity immediately downstream of the inlet cone 66, a vacuum is generated at a vacuum port 72, which is employed to draw a gaseous mixture of air and ozone into water flowing through the aspirator 60”, Fig. 1 and col.3, lines 39-43).
The limitation of “a water treatment system configured to provide treated water to a faucet” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Johnston and the water treatment system of Johnston is capable of providing treated water to a faucet. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Johnston teaches providing ozonated water to appliances (e.g., washing machine, see abstract) via an ozonated water outlet (24, Fig. 1), and further mentions an auxiliary water outlet (178, Fig. 1) having a cap (180, Fig. 1) used to “provide ozonated water to something other than a washing machine” (col.5, lines 10-11), implying that any water delivery means (which could include faucets) is possible.
Regarding claim 8, Johnston teaches wherein the ozone generator includes a corona discharge unit (ozone generator 30, Fig. 1) having an input (air inlet 32, Fig. 1) configured to allow air to be drawn in due to the ozonated air (air in conduits 34 and 102/104, Fig. 1) being drawn to the Venturi tube by the suction (vacuum port 72, Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Johnston teaches wherein the corona discharge unit (ozone generator 30, Fig. 1) is configured to generate ozone through a PCS corona discharge ozone generation process (“the corona discharge ozone generator 30 employs a high voltage power supply (not shown) which generates a voltage applied across glass dielectric plates (not shown) to develop a corona discharge, which then produces ozone from oxygen in the ambient air”, col.3, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of “wherein the Venturi tube is configured such that water pressure at the input is greater than water pressure at a constricted portion of the Venturi tube” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Johnston and the Venturi tube of Johnston is capable of having a water pressure higher at the input than the constricted portion. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Johnston teaches an input of the Venturi tube (inlet cone 66, Fig. 1) and a constricted portion of the Venturi tube (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image2.png
130
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where water flows from the inlet cone, through the constricted portion, and through the outlet cone, which is structurally identical to what the instant claim is referencing. Thus, the pressure being higher at the inlet cone than the constricted portion is an intrinsic result of the aforementioned structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 9193607 B1) as applied to claims 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Dempo (US 5512178 A).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston teaches the water treatment system (20, Fig. 1) having ozonated water outlets (24 and 178, Fig. 1) capable of providing ozonated water to appliances (e.g., washing machine, see abstract) via an ozonated water outlet (24, Fig. 1), and further mentions an auxiliary water outlet (178, Fig. 1) having a cap (180, Fig. 1) used to “provide ozonated water to something other than a washing machine” (col.5, lines 10-11), implying that any water delivery means (which could include faucets) is possible. However, Johnston fails to teach wherein the water treatment system further includes a reverse-osmosis (RO) system.
Dempo teaches a water treatment system (Fig. 1) utilizing ozone generators to ozonate the water (“ozone supply units 10, 11 and 12 and the ozone reaction tanks 13, 14 and 15 are capable of injecting a plenty of ozone gases high in concentration into high-pressure and high-speed water flow”, Fig. 1 and col.5, line 65 to col.6, line 1), where the ozonated water is in fluid connection to a set of ultrafilter membranes including a reverse osmosis membrane (23, Fig. 1) located downstream of the ozone generators in order to remove “colloidal materials, bacteria and the like such as trihalomethane that is carcinogen, particulate, ion or the like” (col.7, lines 27-29).
Johnston and Dempo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of water treatment systems utilizing ozone generators to purify incoming water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ozonated water outlets of Johnston by incorporating a reverse-osmosis filtration system as taught by Dempo because doing so would allow removal of “colloidal materials, bacteria and the like such as trihalomethane that is carcinogen, particulate, ion or the like” (Dempo, col.7, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 10, Johnston teaches the water treatment system (20, Fig. 1) having ozonated water outlets (24 and 178, Fig. 1) capable of providing ozonated water to appliances (e.g., washing machine, see abstract) via an ozonated water outlet (24, Fig. 1), and further mentions an auxiliary water outlet (178, Fig. 1) having a cap (180, Fig. 1) used to “provide ozonated water to something other than a washing machine” (col.5, lines 10-11), implying that any water delivery means (which could include faucets) is possible. However, Johnston fails to teach wherein the water treatment system further includes a reverse-osmosis (RO) system.
Dempo teaches a water treatment system (Fig. 1) utilizing ozone generators to ozonate the water (“ozone supply units 10, 11 and 12 and the ozone reaction tanks 13, 14 and 15 are capable of injecting a plenty of ozone gases high in concentration into high-pressure and high-speed water flow”, Fig. 1 and col.5, line 65 to col.6, line 1), where the ozonated water is in fluid connection to a set of ultrafilter membranes including a reverse osmosis membrane (23, Fig. 1) located downstream of the ozone generators in order to remove “colloidal materials, bacteria and the like such as trihalomethane that is carcinogen, particulate, ion or the like” (col.7, lines 27-29).
Johnston and Dempo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of water treatment systems utilizing ozone generators to purify incoming water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ozonated water outlets of Johnston by incorporating a reverse-osmosis filtration system as taught by Dempo because doing so would allow removal of “colloidal materials, bacteria and the like such as trihalomethane that is carcinogen, particulate, ion or the like” (Dempo, col.7, lines 27-29).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights