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. 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. DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/564,782 application filed on November 28, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 6-10 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. Election /Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6-10, in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2024, 03/04/2024, 07/17/2025, 09/05/2025 and 2/18/2026 . Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith. Claim Interpretation The examined claims are apparatus claims requiring only the positively recited structural components, although structured with physical features that can perform the stated functions or accomplish the intended uses. Functional limitations state either an intended use or operation, a manner of operating a device, apparatus or system, or what the apparatus/system does. Apparatus claims cover what a device is , not what a device does . Hewlett-Packard Co . v. Bausch & Lomb Inc ., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also, 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Of course, in the patentability analysis of these apparatus/system claims, functional features are considered/not ignored and Applicant can and should employ such language where appropriate and helpful. However, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, or if such apparatus can operate in the manner described, then it meets the claim limitation (MPEP §§ 2114, 2173.05(g)). The recited water, hypohalous acid, chlorine and hydrogen peroxide , for example, are considered materials potentially contained within, transient or passing through, generated or produced, or otherwise worked upon by the apparatus rather than structural components of the apparatus . These are merely potential materials for which the apparatus is designed. According to the MPEP §2115 [R-2], a material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims: Expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young , 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In summary, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function . In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. However, specific limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §§2111, 2173.01 I. Unless otherwise specified, any citation to Applicant’s specification will generally refer to the original and any substitute or amended specification rather than a published application. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al . ( US20130048558 ; Arai ) in view of Kolios et al . ( US20100187175 ; Kolios )(each in IDS of 02-15-2024). Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. The analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference. Regarding claims 6- 8 , A rai discloses a pure water production apparatus (Abstract, [0001], Figs. 1, 2) comprising: an oxidation treatment device 3 which a dds a hypohalous acid to a water to be treated containing urea to conduct an oxidation treatment of the urea ([0026]-[0031], Fig. 1) , a residual chlorine concentration measurement device which measures a residual chlorine concentration of an oxidation treated water obtained in the oxidation treatment device ([0018], [0031], [0045]- [004 7 ], [0074], [0090], where the ability to know, control and measure various concentration, including chlorine is noted in [0046] , and a measurement device is thus implied ; [0047] mentions a method for detecting an oxidizing agent concentration and references residual chlorine ), a n addition line which adds hydrogen peroxide to the oxidation treated water in accordance with the residual chlorine concentration measured by the residual chlorine concentration measurement device (Fig. 1 shows several addition lines, including 7 (second supply mechanism ) and related pipes 10 ) ; [0039] alludes to the possibility of adding hydrogen peroxide as a component in a combined slime control agent) , and a biological treatment device 5 which subjects a hydrogen peroxide-added water containing the added hydrogen peroxide to a biological treatment with a biological activated carbon ([0026]-[0033], Fig. 1 , where a biological reactor or bio-treatment means is noted ) . Therefore, Arai discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the line is a hydrogen peroxide addition line . However, Examiner notes that this is an apparatus claim where there is no mention or positive recitation of an integrated closed source of hydrogen peroxide. That is, hydrogen peroxide appears to be a material worked upon or used by the apparatus rather than a positively recited structural component of the system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill could interpret the phrase “ a hydrogen peroxide addition line ” as merely a line intended to incorporate the addition of hydrogen peroxide. Nevertheless, to the extent that one can interpret this phrase as an integrated source of hydrogen peroxide, the notion of employing hydrogen peroxide as a water treatment agent was mentioned above, and is known in the art. For example, Kolios discloses a process of producing ultrapure water includes passing a water stream through a plurality of treatment stages in which inorganic and organic species which are present in the water are separated from the water stream; and adding an aqueous hypobromite solution to the water stream in at least one of the stages (Abstract) . Preferably, a reducing agent is added after a time of action to the water stream which was admixed with the hypobromite solution, which reducing agent is able, in particular, to reduce hypobromite ions and hypochlorite ions ([0042]) . The addition of the reducing agent is intended, in particular, to reduce excess hypobromite and hypochlorite to bromide ions and chloride ions ( Id . ) . The reducing agent, in particularly preferred examples, is hydrogen peroxide ([0044]) . Hydrogen peroxide is particularly suitable since, as a nonionic compound, it can react to completion with hypobromite or with hypochlorite in a virtually "residue-free" manner ( Id. ). Optionally, one can remove excess hydrogen peroxide without problems in a subsequent stage, for example by means of UV irradiation. ( Id .) . When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a hydrogen peroxide addition line to add hydrogen peroxide to the oxidation treated water in accordance with the residual chlorine concentration measured by the residual chlorine concentration measurement device , since hydrogen peroxide can react to completion with certain expected compounds, and because one can readily remove excess hydrogen peroxide by alternate means ( Kolios , [0044]). Additional Disclosures Included : Claim 7 : The biological treatment device comprises a plurality of activated carbon columns packed with a biological activated carbon on which microorganisms have been supported, with the plurality of activated carbon columns being arranged in parallel ([0013], [0016]); and Claim 8 : The hypohalous acid is hypobromous acid (Examiner interprets this is material worked upon or employed by the system rather than a structural component; alternately, note that Arai mentions the adding of a water soluble bromide salt and an oxidizing agent ([0010]-[0014]); it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ any suitable hypophalous acid, including hypobromous acid). Regarding claims 9 and 10 , Arai and Kolios combined discloses or suggests the pure water production apparatus according to Claim 6, except wherein the residual chlorine concentration measurement device comprises a first residual chlorine concentration measurement device which measures a first residual chlorine concentration of the oxidation treated water at a position close to the oxidation treatment unit , and a second residual chlorine concentration measurement device which measures a second residual chlorine concentration of the oxidation treated water at a position close to the biological treatment device , and the hydrogen peroxide addition line comprises a first hydrogen peroxide addition line which adds hydrogen peroxide to the oxidation treated water in accordance with the first residual chlorine concentration measured by the first residual chlorine concentration measurement device , and a second hydrogen peroxide addition line which adds hydrogen peroxide to the oxidation treated water in accordance with the second residual chlorine concentration measured by the second residual chlorine concentration measurement device . However, Arai notes that there may be times when the amount of required reducing agent for removing free chlorine become too large and there are time when reducing treatment is unnecessary, such that an on demand approach with adjustments to the amount added, may be preferred ([0045], [0046]). At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to duplicate already existing parts as necessary for the expected improvement in monitoring and control, and to adjust the preferred locations depending on engineering choice and routine experimentation, since mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and additional control for improved results based on more desirous locations would be expected. Additional Disclosure Included : Claim 10 : The pure water production apparatus according further comprises: a dissolved oxygen concentration measurement device which measures a dissolved oxygen concentration of the hydrogen peroxide-added water or the biologically treated water obtained in the biological treatment device (Arai, [0091], where dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are noted, implying the use of a DO measurement device; alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a DO concentration measurement device to routinely measure the concentrations of DO since a suitable DO concentration is important to effective bio-treatment and the overall treatment effectiveness) , wherein the hydrogen peroxide addition line performs a supplementary addition of hydrogen peroxide to the oxidation treated water in accordance with the measured dissolved oxygen concentration (claim 1 analysis; this appears to be a process rather not a structural feature unless performed manually or by some form of control device). Conclusion Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123. Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification ( i.e . page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure. Electronic Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1065 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM. Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file. To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf , preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence ( i.e ., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice , or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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. /HAYDEN BREWSTER/ Examiner, AU 1779 4/4/2026 'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.