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 Claims
Claims 16-22 are currently pending
Claims 1-15 are currently canceled
Claims 23-30 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 16-22 are new
Claims 16-22 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 16-22 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 and 3 each state “the sparingly soluble salt” and instead should each state “the at least the sparingly soluble salt” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the sparingly soluble salt” and instead should state “the at least the sparingly soluble salt” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “the cartridge” and instead should state “the pressurized cartridge” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "to its saturation concentration.” on line 4. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a saturation concentration,” as recited earlier on line 3 of claim 17, or a different saturation concentration? Claim 18 is also rejected since this claim depends on claim 17.
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 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 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYATAKE et al. (JPS 63130190 A) (hereinafter “Miya”) (see attached English description) in view of HEITELE (U.S. 2022/0177336 A1) (hereinafter “Heitele”).
Regarding Claim 16:
Miya teaches a pressurized vessel (see FIG. 1, a pressure vessel 1) (see page 4) comprising a concentrated solution of minerals (see pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) under a pressure of propellant gas comprising CO2 (see FIG. 1, gas ‘g’) (see page 6 further describing a propellant gas comprising carbon dioxide (CO2)).
Although Miya teaches a pressurized vessel, one may broadly interpret that Miya does not explicitly teach a pressurized cartridge, as recited in new, independent claim 16.
Heitele further teaches a pressurized cartridge including a concentration solution of minerals (see Heitele FIG. 1, a filter cartridge 1) (see Heitele paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 19, 55 and 87-89).
Miya and Heitele are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a pressurized vessel/tank/container/housing. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the pressurized vessel of Miya to include a pressurized cartridge, as taught by Heitele, to further remove unwanted contaminants and particles from a fluid source (see Heitele FIG. 1, a filter cartridge 1) (see Heitele paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 19, 55 and 87-89).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 16, wherein Miya further teaches the concentrated solution of minerals contains at least a sparingly soluble salt, wherein the sparingly soluble salt is at a supersaturation concentration, or at a saturation concentration, or the sparingly soluble salt is close to its saturation concentration (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 17, wherein Miya further teaches the sparingly soluble salt is a mineral bicarbonate species (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the pressurized cartridge of Miya, as modified by Heitele, to substitute the salts of Miya with a mineral bicarbonate species for optimization purposes (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 16, wherein Miya further teaches the pressure in the cartridge is between 35 psi and 100 psi (see Miya page 7 further describing pressure).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the pressurized cartridge of Miya, as modified by Heitele, to have a pressure in the cartridge between 35 psi and 100 psi for optimization purposes (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 16, wherein Miya further teaches the concentrated solution of minerals comprises at least a dissolved calcium, and/or a magnesium salt, preferably a bicarbonate salt (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts).
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 16, wherein Miya further teaches the propellant gas is CO2 (see Miya FIG. 1, gas ‘g’) (see Miya page 6 further describing a propellant gas comprising carbon dioxide (CO2)).
Regarding Claim 22:
The combination of Miya in view of Heitele teaches the pressurized cartridge according to claim 16, wherein Miya further teaches the concentrated solution of minerals comprises at least one salt selected from magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), magnesium bicarbonate (Mg(HCO₃)₂), magnesium nitrate (MgNO₃), calcium nitrate (Ca(NO₃)₂), calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO₃)₂), sodium chloride (NaCI), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃), and potassium bicarbonate (KHCO₃) (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the pressurized cartridge of Miya, as modified by Heitele, to substitute the salts of Miya with at least one salt selected from the list above for optimization purposes (see Miya pages 5-6 further describing an aqueous stock solution containing an edible dechlorinating agent such as catechins along with minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, iron and manganese in the form of salts) (see Miya page 6 further describing concentration).
Other References Considered
TOB (U.S. 2020/0207651 A1) (hereinafter “Tob”) teaches a system and method of a domestic appliance for producing mineral water from tap water.
Alexander Zarchin (U.S. 3,093,975) (hereinafter “Alex”) teaches a process for sweetening saltwater by freezing.
MORAND WALTER (DE 3134359 A1) (hereinafter “Morand”) (see attached English description) teaches a pressure cartridge with gas.
KRUGER MARC et al. (WO 2021148466 A1) (hereinafter “Kruger”) (see attached English description) teaches a filter beverage unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights