DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a water discharging member" and “a water quality detector” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As defined in the specifications [Page 6 line 20] “a faucet or other water supply switches may be used”. As defined in the specifications [Page 7 line 8-9] “used to detect the concentration of total dissolved solid (TDS) in the water to generate the water quality signal corresponding to the concentration value”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-6 are 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.
The claim element in claim 1, “the controller being stored with a water quality standard and a recirculation period” is indefinite – difficult to understand. The examiner assumes that water quality standards and the recirculation time period are stored in the controller’s memory.
The claim element in claim 3, “wherein the water quality standard and the recirculation period are adjustable by the controller.” Is indefinite because the claims reads as if the water quality standard and the recirculation appear as operational variables. However, the water quality standard, according to the disclosure is chosen for the location where the apparatus is being used, not a day-to-day operational variable.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Salter et al (U.S Patent No 6,001,244. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Regarding Claim 1, Salter teaches A water purification apparatus (Column 11, Claim 1) a pre-filter for filtering raw water (Fig 1, element 14) an RO filter having an inlet and an outlet (Fig 2, element 400); a pump having an inlet in fluid communication with the pre-filter (Fig 2, element 210), a post-filter in fluid communication with the outlet of the RO filter for filtering and storing drinking water (Fig 1, element 38, Column 2, line 35-40); an outlet in fluid communication with the inlet of the RO filter (Fig 2, element 154); a recirculating water loop in fluid communication with the post-filter and the inlet of the pump for facilitating flow of the drinking water (Fig 2, elements 175, 210, 120); a water discharging member in fluid communication with the recirculating water loop for discharging and stopping discharge of the drinking water (Fig 2, element 166), a water quality detector in fluid communication with the recirculating water loop for generating a water quality signal corresponding to a quality value of the drinking water (Fig 2, elements 180), a control valve, which is in fluid communication with the recirculating water loop and located between the water quality detector and the inlet of the pump (Fig 2, element 178); a controller electrically connected with the pump, the water quality detector, and the control valve for receiving the water quality signal, the controller being stored with a water quality standard and a recirculation period(Column 8, Line 50-59), wherein when the water discharging member stops discharge of the drinking water and the quality value of the drinking water represented by the water quality signal exceeds the water quality standard, the controller activates the pump and the control valve (Column 6 line 57-65). Salter does not teach “a post-filter in fluid communication with the outlet of the RO filter for filtering and storing drinking water”
However, it would be obvious to add a post filter to remove remain contaminants and “provide a final polishing of the disponed water” (Column 2, line 37-40)
Regarding claim 2, Salter teaches the inventions as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the water quality standard stored in the controller includes a total dissolved solid concentration of a drinking water, and the recirculation period is at least 20 seconds (Column 6, line 50-55 and Column 7, line 46-53)
Regarding claim 3, Salter teaches the inventions as discussed above in claim 2, wherein the water quality standard and the recirculation period are adjustable by the controller (Column 10, line 11-26)
Regarding claim 4, Salter teaches the inventions as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the controller closes the control valve after the recirculation period has passed (Column 7, line 45-53)
Regarding claim 5, Salter teaches the inventions as discussed above in claim 1, further comprising a check valve, which is in fluid communication with the recirculating water loop and located between the control valve and the inlet of the
PNG
media_image1.png
922
999
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pump (Fig 2, elements 175, 178, 210)
Regarding claim 6, Salter teaches the inventions as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the inlet of the pump receives the drinking water and the raw water filtered through the pre-filter during the recirculation period. (Fig 2, elements 106,
PNG
media_image2.png
836
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
120, 210, 300)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights