DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by CN 105923858, hereinafter ‘858 . As for claim 1 , ‘858 teaches a n ionization chamber 16 for use with a water filtration system (9) , the ionization system comprising: a housing 16 having a first ingress 15 and the second ingress 14 , the first ingress 15 adapted to pass filtered water into said housing, the second ingress 14 adapted to pass a brine into said housing, said housing having a first egress 1 and a second egress 2 , the first egress 1 adapted to pass hydrogenated water from said housing, the second egress 2 adapted to pass the brine from said housing; a first electrode positioned in said housing, said first electrode adapted to pass an electrical charge of a polarity (cathode, 0016 ) ; a second electrode positioned in said housing (anode, 0016) , said second electrode adapted to pass an electrical charge of another polarity (negative vs positive) ; a first brine chamber formed in said housing (the chamber communicating between ingress 14 and egress 2) , said first brine chamber communicating with the second ingress 14 and the second egress 2 of said housing; a first filtered water chamber positioned in said housing (communicating between ingress 15 and egress 1) , said first filtered water chamber communicating with the first ingress 15 and the first egress 1 ; and an ion exchange membrane 17 positioned between said first brine chamber and said first filtered water chamber, said ion exchange membrane adapted to pass hydrogen ions from the brine to the filtered water as the electrical charges are supplied to the first electrode and the second electrode. See paragraphs [0009, 0015, and 0018]. As for claim s 2 -4 , ‘ 858 teaches each of said first electrode and said second electrode being a plate positioned so as to extend across said housing (see the reproduced figure and paragraph 0017) , wherein the chambers are respectively defined by each the plates and the membrane. As for claim s 9 and 14 , the power supply being electrically connected to the electrode is evident from the DC voltage applied [0017] and the membrane being a proton exchange membrane is evident from the passage of hydrogen ions thereacross [0019]. 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 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘858 in view of WO 2009/125966 A2, hereinafter ‘966. As shown in the 102 rejection above, ‘858 teaches the limitation of claims 15-16 and 19 that correspond to the limitations of claims 1-4 and 9. In addition, ‘858 also teaches reverse osmosis filter 9, wherein 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 [as in claim 15]. ‘858 doesn’t specify a housing that includes both the reverse osmosis filter and the ionization chamber positioned therein, but such is taught by ‘966. ‘966 teaches a casing including both a filter unit 40 and an electrolyzer tank (abstract) [as in claim 1 5 ]. 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. Upon modification, the egresses would necessarily extend outward of the housing. As for claim 20 , the ionization chamber would also extend vertically within the housing (as well as, the other two directions in 3D space). Claim s 5-8, 10-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘858 or ‘858 as modified by ‘966 (for claims 17-18) and in further view of Rock (U.S. 2002/09119358 A1) . ‘966 doesn’t specify the architecture inside the ionization chambers including the panels sandwiched between the respective electrodes and membrane, nor the serpentine channel configuration nor the additional brine and filtered water channels and a third electrode, but such is taught by Rock. Rock teaches a stacked electrochemical cell including multiple membrane electrode assemblies, each having an electrode and anion exchange membrane, thereby forming multiple electrochemical chamber separated by respective membranes (figures 2 and 9, wherein a third electrode (next layer) is inherent in the stacked configuration. Each membrane divides an anode chamber and a cathode chamber. Rock also specifies a serpentine flow configuration (abstract) [as in claims 5-8, 10-13 and 17-18 ]. 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 sandwiched configuration of electrodes, membranes, chambers, and membranes, electrodes and panel with serpentine channel configuration of Rock in the invention of ’858 or the modified ‘858, in order to improve distribution of fluid across the electrode surfaces, enhance mass transport and reaction efficiency, and achieve more uniform electrochemical performance. The combination merely involves applying known electrochemical cell design features to a known electrolysis system to yield predictable results. Also, the use of serpentine chambers and stacked plate configurations in electrochemical systems is well known in the art for improving fluid distribution and efficiency, and their application to the electrolysis system of CN ‘858 would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following: The forward slash should be removed from line 1. Appropriate correction is required. 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 s 1, 9, 14-15 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/515,930 (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 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