Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-2, 5, and 8-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said ionization filter" in line 13 on page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramowitz et al. (U.S. 6,572,902 B2), in view of Yu (U.S. 10,589,977 B2), and Yang et al. (CN 105923858A).
Regarding claim 1, Abramowitz teaches an apparatus for filtering, mineralizing and hydrogenating drinking water (refer fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
a supply of a mineral or supplement (refer supply of minerals through in-line injection system 26);
a reverse osmosis filter (refer 18) producing a product stream (permeate) and waste stream (brine) (refer col. 3 – lines 39-49); and
an ionization chamber 24 receiving the filtered, mineralized water and producing hydrogenated water.
Abramowitz 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 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.
Abramowitz does not disclose that the ionization chamber has a first inlet connected to the permeate outlet of the reverse osmosis filter and a second inlet connected to the brine outlet of the reverse osmosis filter, said ionization chamber comprising: a container having an interior volume; a first compartment formed within said container; a second compartment formed within said container; and a membrane positioned between the first compartment and the second compartment, wherein a first conductor is positioned in said first compartment and a second conductor is positioned in said second compartment, wherein said first compartment receives at least a portion of the permeate from the reverse osmosis filter through the first inlet, wherein said second compartment receives at least a portion of the brine and another portion of the permeate from the reverse osmosis filter through the second inlet, wherein said ionization filter has a hydrogenated water outlet at the first compartment and an impure water outlet at a second compartment.
Yang teaches a water treatment system comprising RO module (9) producing a permeate (10) and retentate (11); and an electrolytic cell (16) comprising a first compartment and a second compartment separated by a membrane (17), wherein the first compartment receives at least a portion of the permeate (10) (refer fig. 1) and the second compartment receives at least a portion of the brine (retentate 11) (refer fig. 1), wherein the electrolytic cell has hydrogenated water outlet (1) at the first compartment and an impure water (2) outlet at the second compartment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the ionization module of Abramowitz with the ionization module of Yang, as both structures are known for providing hydrogenated water. The substitution merely involves replacing one known ionization module with another known equivalent structure performing the same function (providing hydrogenated water), yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 2, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Yu further 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). Yu also teaches a pump 160 causing mineral within the bottle to be added to manifold 120.
Regarding claim 5, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Abramowitz 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.
Regarding claim 8, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Abramowitz teaches 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)
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Abramowitz 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).
Regarding claim 11, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Yu also teaches a mixing manifold 300 having a vertical orientation within the housing (evident from figure 3) [as in claim 11].
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramowitz et al. (U.S. 6,572,902 B2), in view of Yang et al. (CN 105923858A).
Regarding claim 14, Abramowitz teaches process for filtering, mineralizing and hydrogenating drinking water (refer fig. 1), the process comprising: passing tap water through a reverse osmosis filter (18) so as to produce a permeate output and a brine output from the filter (refer col. 3 – lines 39-49); passing a portion of permeate output of the reverse osmosis filter into a first compartment of an ionizer (refer permeate supplied to electrolysis unit 24); ionizing the portion of the permeate output in the ionizer so as to produce hydrogenated drinking water (col. 2 – lines 65-67). Abramowitz also teaches passing the permeate from the reverse osmosis filter to both compartments of the ionizer 24 (see figure 1 and col. 4, lines 52-57). Abramowitz teaches mineralizing permeate of RO. Providing additional mineralization to the hydrogenated water output would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve desired concentration of minerals in the hydrogenated water.
Abramowitz does not teach passing another portion of the permeate output and at least a portion of the brine output of the ionizer into a second compartment of the ionizer.
Yang teaches a water treatment system comprising RO module (9) producing a permeate (10) and retentate (11); and an electrolytic cell (16) comprising a first compartment and a second compartment separated by a membrane (17), wherein the first compartment receives at least a portion of the permeate (10) (refer fig. 1) and the second compartment receives at least a portion of the brine (retentate 11) (refer fig. 1), wherein the electrolytic cell has hydrogenated water outlet (1) at the first compartment and an impure water (2) outlet at the second compartment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the ionization module of Abramowitz with the ionization module of Yang, as both structures are known for providing hydrogenated water. The substitution merely involves replacing one known ionization module with another known equivalent structure performing the same function (providing hydrogenated water), yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 17, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Abramowitz discloses that electrolytic cell comprises an anodic chamber having an anode and cathodic chamber having a cathode, and that the anode element in the anodic chamber is connected to the positive terminal of a DC voltage source (refer col. 2 – lines 33-67). Abramowitz further teaches that when a DC voltage is applied between the anode and cathode at a sufficiently high voltage, an electric current is generated, flowing between the electrodes. The electric current produces electrolysis of the water. At the surface of the anode element is generated oxygen gas, producing anodic (acidic) water having a relatively low pH value, as indicated above, while at the cathode element, hydrogen gas is generated, resulting in cathodic (alkaline) water, which has a relatively high pH value. Thus, the result of the operation of the electrolytic cell is two streams of water, one of which is acidic and the other of which is alkaline (Refer col. 2 – line 51 to col. 3 – line 2).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramowitz et al. (U.S. 6,572,902 B2), in view of Yang et al. (CN 105923858A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yu (U.S. 10,589,977 B2)
Regarding claim 18 and 20, modified Abramowitz teaches limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Abramowitz discloses that in-line injection system 26, which injects a concentrated mineral mix into the purified water as it is being moved, typically by a pump (not shown) and that rate of mineral injection can be varied to adjust the purified water mineral concentration to a desired level (refer col. 4 – lines 4-18). Providing a container/bottle from which the mineral concentrate is supplied would have been inherent. Abramowitz doesn’t specify a peristaltic pump, however, Abramowitz discloses adjusting injection rate of minerals. 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.
Abramowitz does not teach a manifold mixing the minerals with water.
Yu teaches 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. Yu also 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the process of modified Abramowitz to substitute mineral injection system of Abramowitz with a 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.
Regarding claim 19, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Abramowitz and Yu do not teach or suggest that the ionization chamber is connected to the permeate outlet and the brine outlet of the reverse osmosis filter such that a portion of the permeate enters the first compartment of the ionizer and another portion of the permeate enters the second compartment of the ionizer. The second compartment also receives a portion of the brine from the reverse osmosis filter.
However, this limitation is taught by Yang et al. (CN 105923858A). Refer claim rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights