DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/29/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 filed on 03/29/2024 are currently pending. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn and claims 1-10 and 16-20 are currently under examination in this application.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.
Claims 1,10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze et al (US 7,067,054 B2) in view of Saveliev et al (US 2009/0194478 Al).
As per claim 1, Fritze teaches a water treatment system comprising 1st and 2nd filter cartridges arranged in series. Specifically, Fritze discloses a first filter cartridge (302) receiving untreated water through inlet conduit (308), an intermediate water outlet (310) from the first cartridge, a flow connector portion (312) receiving water from intermediate outlet (310) and directing the water to a second filter cartridge (304), and an outlet conduit (314) through which the twice filtered water is delivered to a point of use (see figure 14 of Fritze). Thus, Fritze teaches the claimed first cartridge inlet, first cartridge, first cartridge outlet, connector, second cartridge inlet, second cartridge, and the second cartridge outlet/system outlet arrangement.
Fritze does not teach the connector including an adjustable blending valve configured to receive water from the first cartridge outlet and blend that water with water exiting the second cartridge, thereby forming a blended product delivered to the system outlet.
Saveliev teaches a water treatment system in which the blend valve can be coupled to a permeate outlet and the feed water inlet and can be capable of blending the feed water and the permeate water to produce mixed water (abstract; lines 4-6). In particular, port 35 (carrying water from a first-stage filtration outlet) and blend port 38 (carrying water from a second-stage filtration outlet) are fluidly connected, and an adjustable blend valve 105 /115 regulates the amount of bypass water entering the blend stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the serial two cartridge system of Fritze by providing the adjustable blending arrangement taught by Saveliev, such that a controllable portion of the water exiting the first cartridge bypasses the second treatment stage and is subsequently blended with water exiting the second treatment stage. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because Saveliev teaches that the adjustable blending of upstream treated water with downstream treated water permits the composition, particularly the total dissolved solids, of the final product water to be controlled to a desired level thereby improving the consistency and taste of filtered water.
As per claim 10, Fritze/Saveliev combination discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Saveliev discloses a TDS sensor 40 disposed upstream of the mixture outlet 135 (the system outlet) for measuring the TDS value of the mixture of the feed water and permeate water of the blended product. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included this TDS monitoring feature to verify and maintain the desired blend quality and taste.
As for claim 16, Fritze teaches:
A manifold assembly 306, which receives water to be treated and directs it toward the first filter cartridge.
A second filter cartridge 304.
A water outlet 314 of the second filter cartridge in fluid communication with the manifold assembly 306.
The flow connector 312 of the manifold assembly 306 which carries water from the intermediate water outlet 310 onward to the second filter cartridge 304.
Fritze does not disclose a blending valve adjustably positioned in the connector and configured for blending the water with the water from the cartridge outlet under manual operator control thus forming a blended product.
Saveliev discloses a blending valve (combined DBV/FBV) adjustably positioned along a connector structure (the blend port 38, in communication with the T-connector /fifth manifold 225), configured to blend water tapped from upstream of a filtration stage (via the bypass port 35) with water exiting that filtration stage (the permeate outlet 76), Under manual operator control (via a rotatable variator stud), forming a mixed water product delivered to a system outlet (the mixture outlet 135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate Saveliev’s known blending valve into the connector (flow connector 312) of Fritze’s manifold assembly, such that a controllable portion of the water exiting the manifold bypasses the second treatment stage and is subsequently blended with water exiting the second treatment stage. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because Saveliev teaches that the adjustable blending of upstream water with downstream treated water permits the control of total dissolved solids in the final water product thereby improving the consistency and taste of filtered water.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Saveliev and further in view of Bailey et al (US 6,001,249).
As for claim 2, Fritze/Saveliev combination discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose that the first filter cartridge is a sediment filter.
Bailey discloses a multistage water filter system in which a first cartridge is a sediment filter, positioned upstream of subsequent filtration stages to remove sediments before the water reaches later-stage cartridges (column 6; lines 45-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first filter cartridge of the Fritze/Saveliev combination as a sediment filter, as taught by Bailey, because sediment pre-filtration is a known first stage treatment used to protect downstream filtration components (including RO membranes as in Saveliev) from fouling by particulate matter.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Saveliev and further in view of Hembree et al (US 5,525,214 A).
As for claim 3, Fritze/Saveliev combination discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose that the second filter cartridge is an ion exchange filter.
Hembree discloses filter cartridge 40 employing an ion exchange resin as one of its filter media, used for removing dissolved contaminants from water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ion exchange filter, as taught by Hembree for the reverse osmosis module used as the second stage cartridge in the Fritze/Saveliev combination, because ion exchange and reverse osmosis filtration were both well-known, art recognized alternative media for removing dissolved solid or ions from water.
As for claim 19, Fritze/Saveliev discloses a carbon filter 12 as the first stage filtration cartridge in the treatment system directly satisfying the carbon filter cartridge alternative recited in claim 19. Fritze/Saveliev does not expressly teach an ion exchange filter as the alternative filter medium.
Hembree discloses a filter cartridge 40 employing an ion-exchange resin as one of its filter media, used for removing dissolved contaminants from water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute an ion exchange filter as taught by Hembree for the carbon filter cartridge, because carbon filter and iron exchange media were both well-known, interchangeable filtration media for the removal of contaminants and dissolved solids from water.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Saveliev and further in view of Brane et al (US 4,466,457).
As for claim 4, Fritze/Saveliev combination discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose a connector passage “configured for threadably accommodating said blending valve”.
Brane discloses a blending valve stem 57 threadedly received within a cap 32 of a connector body, such that rotation of an external knob 56 advances or retract the stem through the threaded passage to control the blend of two water streams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the connector of the Fritze/Saveliev combination with the passage threadably accommodating the blending valve, as taught by Brane, because threaded stem-in-passage mounting is a well-known technique for adjustability positioning a blending valve in a connector, for the purpose of blending two streams of water.
As for claim 6, Fritze/Saveliev teaches a blending valve adjustably positioned in a connector, blending water from the 1st and 2nd cartridge outlets into a blended product, via a rotatable stem/stud (Saveliev variator stud). Fritze/Saveliev does not teach that the stem is threaded or has an actuating knob at one end.
Brane teaches a blending valve stem 57 threadedly received in the connector body, with an actuating knob 56 at one end for manual rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include a threaded stem with a knob as a well-known way to enable smooth and incremental hand operated adjustment of a blending valve to yield the predictable result of manually adjusting the proportions of blended water.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze/Saveliev/Brane and further in view of Kahle et al (US 5,535,943 A).
As for claim 5, Fritze/Saveliev/Brane teaches a connector housing a blending valve with a threaded passage but does not teach that that the connector is an H fitting with four legs and with fluid communication with the passage.
Kahle teaches a mixing valve assembly that has an H shaped housing with four legs- cold water inlet, hot water inlet, mixed water outlet, and an actuator leg housing the blending valve’s stem- all communicating with the central mixing passage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the connector of the base combination as an H-fitting, as taught by Kahle, to achieve the predictable result of a compact multi-port blending connector.
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze/Saveliev/Brane and further in view of Paar et al (US 11,292,710 B2).
As in claim 7, Fritze/Saveliev/Brane teaches a threaded blending valve stem with an actuating knob at one end but does not teach an over-molded seal on the tip of the stem opposite to the knob.
Paar teaches a valve stem including “a reduced diameter portion extending from the main tip body, and an over-molded tip seal disposed on the reduced diameter portion” (column 5; lines 56-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the stem of Fritze/Saveliev/Brane combination with an over molded seal on its tip, as taught by Paar to achieve the predictable result of a more reliable, easily serviceable seal at that location.
As for claim 8, the claim 7 combination teaches an over-molded seal on the reduced diameter tip of the blending valve stem but does not teach that the seal extends at least a third of the stem's length.
The axial length of an over-molded seal is a result-effective variable affecting sealing reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this length, including extending it to at least a third of the stem, through routine experimentation, absent any showing of unexpected results.
As for claim 9, the claim 7 combination teaches an over-molded seal on a tip portion of the blending valve stem but doesn't teach that the tip is unthreaded and has a diameter smaller than the diameter of the stem adjacent to the actuating knob.
Paar teaches a stem including “a main tip body extending from the inlet tube, a reduced diameter portion extending from the main tip body, and an over-molded tip seal disposed on the reduced diameter portion” (column 5; lines 56-60)- directly disclosing an unthreaded, reduced-diameter tip portion distinct from the larger diameter body of the stem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the tip of the base combination’s stem as an unthreaded portion with a smaller diameter than the stem adjacent to the actuator knob, as taught by Paar, to achieve the predictable result of a properly seated over-molded seal.
As for claim 20, Fritze/Saveliev/Brane teaches a blending valve adjustably positioned in a connector, blending water from the manifold and the cartridge outlet, forming a blended product. Fritze/Saveliev/Brane further teaches a threaded blending valve stem with an actuating knob at one end but does not teach an over molded seal on the tip of the stem opposite to the knob.
Paar teaches a valve stem and an over-molded tip seal disposed on the reduced diameter portion.
A threaded stem with a knob is a well-known way to operate a blending valve, and over-molded seal onto the stem’s free end is a known design for forming a reliable sealed path and allow the sealed components to be serviced when needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the blending valve of Fritze/Saveliev as a threaded stem with an actuating knob and an over-molded seal on its free end, as taught by Brane and Paar, and to extend that seal to at least a third of the stem's length through routine optimization, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Saveliev and further in view of Scholz et al (US 8,505,741 B2).
As for claim17, Fritze/ Saveliev teaches a manifold, a filter cartridge, a connector, and a blending valve as recited in claim 16, with Saveliev’s blending structure positioned near the mixture outlet, downstream of the filter cartridge. Fritze/ Saveliev does not teach the connector and blending valve positioned on the inlet side of the manifold.
Scholz teaches: A blend adjusting mechanism (an adjustment wheel 23 that axially displaces an untreated water distribution sleeve 61 to open or close complementary openings 44a-h) positioned at the interface between the filter head and the filter cartridge, i.e. on the inlet side, controlling the blend ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the connector and blending valves of the Fritze/ Saveliev combination to the inlet side of the manifold, as taught by Scholz, because doing so consolidates the blending function into the existing cartridge/head connection rather than requiring a separate, dedicated fitting on the outlet side. This yields a more compact overall assembly with fewer connections and correspondingly fewer potential leak paths.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Saveliev
As for claim 18, Saveliev Discloses a connector (T-connector/fifth manifold 225) and blending valve (DBV/FBV) positioned near the mixture outlet 135, downstream of the filter cartridge i.e. on the outlet side of the manifold, directly satisfying the limitation recited in claim 18.
Claims 17 and 18 both depend on claim 16 and recite the identical connector/blending valve structure, differing only in whether it is mounted on the inlet side or outlet side of the manifold, with no distinction in function or result attributed to either placement. This confirms that mounting location is a design choice between interchangeable alternatives or a mere rearrangement of parts yielding no new or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bachar EL Haj Hassan whose telephone number is (571)270-0121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BACHAR EL HAJ HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights