DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following: Claim 3, line 2 “through the through” should be “through”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1 - 4, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 100850378 B1 , hereinafter ‘ 378 . As for claim s 1 and 7 , ‘378 teaches a process for ionizing water (see “ III. Producing reducing alkaline ionized water of the English Translation ” ) , the process comprising: forming an ionization chamber (1) having a cathode compartment 3 and an anode compartment 2 with a proton exchange membrane 6 separating the cathode compartment from the anode compartment; introducing a filtered water into the cathode compartment (filtered water from the second reverse osmosis filtration is sent to the cathode compartment 3) ; introducing a brine into the anode compartment (deep seawater is supplied to anode compartment 2) ; applying an electrical charge to the anode compartment 2 and to the cathode compartment 3 such that ions from the brine in the anode compartment flow through the proton exchange membrane to the filtered water in the cathode compartment (direct current is applied from the rectifier 7 to the electrolysis device having an anode chamber and a cathode chamber. A rectifier is a power supply that delivers direct current to the electrodes of an electrolysis cell, thereby inherently supplying electrical energy of opposite polarities to the anode and cathode electrodes to drive oxidation and reduction reactions [as in claim 7 ]) ; and removing the ionized filtered water from the cathode compartment (ionized water from the cathode compartment 3 is sent to mineral adjusting tank 8) [as in claim 1 ] . As for claim s 2 and 8-9 , because of the difference in salt concentration between the cathode and anode chambers described above, an osmotic difference exists between the chambers and a portion of the filtered water from the cathode compartment would necessarily flow through the proton exchange membrane and into the anode compartment, wherein hydrogen gas is produced in the filtered water of the cathode compartment as indicated in the “Cathode Chamber (2) Reaction” of the English translation . As for claims 3-4 , the water passing through the first reverse osmosis filter is considered to be equivalent to tap water, that is then passed to the second reverse osmosis filter and into the cathode compartment, wherein permeate from the second reverse osmosis filter would have the solids removed to the within the same claimed range of claim 4. As for claim 11 , mineral is added to the water that passed from the second reverse osmosis filter to the cathode chamber in tank 8 (see the “ Ⅳ. Second pH adjustment and mineral adjustment stage ” section of the English Translation) . Claims 1 -2, 7- 1 2 , and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 105923858, hereinafter ‘858. As for claims 1 -2, 7-12, and 14-17 , ‘858 teaches a system wherein raw water enters a pretreatment unit 8 and then flows to the inlet of a reverse osmosis membrane unit 9. Filtered water from outlet 10 of unit 9 then flows into the cathode chamber of the ionization chamber 16 via ionizer inlet 15, and concentration water from outlet 11 of unit 9 flows into the anode chamber of the ionizer 16 via return unit 5 and ionizer inlet 14. The difference in salt concentrations between the cathode and anode chambers would naturally produce an osmotic pressure differential. The ionizer 16 includes a membrane 17 between the chambers and upon a power supply applied to the electrodes to produce a voltage therebetween delivering electrical energy of different polarities to the respective electrode of the cathode and anode chamber, hydrogen ions and minerals pass through the membrane 17 and into the cathode chamber to create mineralized hydrogen water that exits the cathode chamber via outlet 1 and the resulting acidic water from anode chamber exits via outlet 2. 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. Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘858 in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art of figure 1. As expanded above, ‘858 teaches the limitations of claims 3-6 except the reference doesn’t specify the raw water being tap water or the pretreatment unit 8 being an activated carbon filter or a sediment filter. However as shown in figure 1 and in the description thereof, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches tap water 10 first entering a pretreatment in stage 1 of an activated carbon filtration that is used with a sediment filter [0009]. 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 tap water and pretreating step of activated carbon filtration and/or sediment filtration of Applicant’s admitted prior art in the invention of ‘858 since the prior art teaches such is conventional in the art for producing hydrogenated water [0009]. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘858 in view of WO 2009/125966 A2, hereinafter ‘966 . ‘858 doesn’t specify that the filter unit and ionization chamber are placed within a housing. But such is taught by ‘966. ‘966 teaches a casing including both a filter unit 40 and an electrolyzer tank (abstract) [as in claim 13 ]. 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 filter and electrolysis chamber of ‘858 within the case of ‘966, since ‘858 teaches the benefits of providing a compact integrated water treatment appliance suitable for consumer use, reduce installation complexity, and protect internal component and for reasons given in the abstract . Also, combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘858 as modified in the rejection of claim 13 above and in further view of Applicant’s admitted prior art of figure 1 . As shown above in the rejections of claims 3-6, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches tap water 10 first entering a pretreatment in stage 1 of an activated carbon filtration that is used with a sediment filter [0009]. 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 tap water and pretreating step of activated carbon filtration and/or sediment filtration of Applicant’s admitted prior art in the invention of ‘858 since the prior art teaches such is conventional in the art for producing hydrogenated water [0009]. 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 . Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-16 of copending Application No. 18163480 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 12 are anticipated by the claims of the copending 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1138 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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