DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 12-13 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 : “ said pump ” (claim 12). Claim 13 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. left 695325 0 0 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Abramowitz et al. (U.S. 6,572,902 B2), hereinafter “Abra” . Abra teaches a process for filtering, mineralizing and hydrogenating drinking water, the process comprising: passing tap water (10, col. 3, line 6) through a filter (12, 14, 18) so as to produce a filtered water output from the filter; adding a mineral or supplement (via injection system 26) to the filtered water output and mixing the mineral or supplement with the filtered water so as to produce a mineralized filtered water output (the result of the injection) ; and ionizing (step 24) the mineralized filtered water output so as to produce a hydrogenated mineralized drinking water (col. 2, lines 65-67) . 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 1- 6, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abra in view of Yu (U.S. 10,589,977 B2), hereinafter “Yu”. As for claim 1 , a s shown above, Abra teaches an apparatus for filtering, mineralizing, and hydrogenating drinking water including a supply of mineral 10, a filter (12, 14) removing contaminants from the tap water, mineralizing apparatus, and an ionization chamber 24 receiving the filtered, mineralized water and producing hydrogenated water. Abra doesn’t specify a housing having positioned thereof the filter and a manifold , wherein the manifold mixes the filtered water with the mineral or supplement. However, such is taught by Yu. Yu teaches a housing (2, figure 1) having positioned therein a filter (20) as well as a manifold: 120 of figure 1 (“connection pipe 120 may function as a mineral water generation unit, in which minerals are mixed with drinking water” , col. 6, lines 27-29 ) or 300 of figure 3 adapted to mix the filtered water with the mineral or supplement from a supply of mineral or supplement 140 [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 substitute the fluid injections or delivery arrangement of Abra with the manifold mixing system of Yu, as both structures are known for combining multiple fluid streams. The substitution merely involves replacing one known fluid delivery and mixing mechanism with another known equivalent structure performing the same function (mixing filtered water with mineral supplement), yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc . As for claims 2-3 , Yu teaches a container receptacle 150 and bottle 140 containing the mineral/supplement to be added, wherein the receptacle includes an inlet connected to an outlet of the bottle (figures 2-3). He also teaches a pump 160 causing mineral within the bottle to be added to manifold 120. Reasons for modifying the mineral mixing system of Abra with that of Yu was given above. + As for claim 4 , both references teach a pump to deliver the mineral supplement for mixing but don’t specify a peristaltic pump. However, 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 peristaltic pump or a diaphragm pump, as such pumps are well-known for transferring liquid, particularly in applications involving controlled or metered delivery of additives. 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. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. As for claim 5 , Abra includes a reverse osmosis filter 18 (col.3, lines 40-44). Though he doesn’t specify a pump connected to the inlet of the housing to pass pressurized tap water into and through the filter, such would have been obvious to ensure adequate and consistent feed pressure since water sources such as municipal supplies and wells (taught by Abra (col. 3, lines 3-9) can provide variable pressure and pumps are routinely used in reverse osmosis systems to provide or boost pressure and selecting to include a pump is a predictable design choice to achieve reliable operation. As for claims 6 and 9-10 , Abra teaches his ionizer (electrolysis unit 24) to comprise a container having a volume divided by a membrane into first and second compartments [as in claim 6] wherein the membrane allows the flow of protons (e.g. hydrogen ions) therethrough and an outlet for the hydrogenated water (see col. 2, line 33 through col. 3, line 2). As for claims 11-13 , Yu also teaches a mixing manifold 300 having a vertical orientation within the housing (evident from figure 3) [as in claim 11] and a line 72 at the bottom of the manifold connecting the pump 130 and filter thereto [as in claim 12] and a manifold outlet 304 located in an upper portion of the manifold. 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 substitute the fluid injections or delivery arrangement of Abra with the manifold mixing system of Yu, as both structures are known for combining multiple fluid streams. The substitution merely involves replacing one known fluid delivery and mixing mechanism with another known equivalent structure performing the same function (mixing filtered water with mineral supplement), yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. As for claims 18-20 the corresponding steps are made obvious in view of Yu. See the rejections of claims 4-5 and 11-13 above. Claim s 7-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abra or in view of Abra as modified by Yu, as applied above and in further view of CN 105923858 A, hereinafter ‘858 . Abra or Abra in view of Yu, as expanded in the rejections above, teach the limitations of the aforementioned claims including the power supply connected to the first and second conductors (the power source applying the DC voltage to the metal cathode and anode elements of col. 2, lines 59+ of Abra) [as in claim 8] and also passing the permeate from the reverse osmosis filter to both compartments of the ionizer 24 of Abra (see figure 1 and col. 4, lines 52-57) [as in claim 16] . However, Abra or the modified Abra doesn’t teach that the brine from the reverse osmosis filter passes at least a portion to one compartment of the ionizer. However, 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. The ionizer 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 [as in claims 7-8 and 15-17 ]. 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 brine of the reverse osmosis unit of Abra or the modified Abra to pass brine into the anode compartment of the ionizer 24 as in the invention 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. Also, Abra teaches adding selected minerals to the water prior to electrolysis in order to provide sufficient ionic content and to control the properties of the electrolyzed water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the concentrate (brine) stream from the reverse osmosis unit, as taught by ‘858, as a source of dissolved ions for the electrolysis process. ‘858 teaches that the brine stream contains a high concentration of dissolved ions and is suitable for use in an electrolysis chamber. Substituting or supplementing the mineral addition of Abra with the brine stream would have provided a predictable means of supplying ions to improve conductivity and support electrolysis, while also utilizing an available byproduct stream. 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- 3, 10, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/471,494 (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