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 Interpretation
Independent system, i.e. “apparatus”, claims 16, 25 and 31, as well as dependent claim 17, recites apparatus structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “which is regenerated using an alkali salt” referring to the recited “first ion exchanger” in claim 16, recitation of wherein the “alkali salt is sodium chloride or potassium chloride” in claim 17, recitation of a “cartridge” which is “designed for the system of claim 16”, and recitation of “A system adapted to carry out the method according to claim 17 constitute such functional language.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states 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.”
Accordingly, the following claim interpretations are herein presented to clarify on the record the limitation(s) recited in each of the noted claims:
Claim 16 is interpreted as limited to containing the recited structure of “A system for treating drinking water, comprising:
a softening system including a first ion exchanger;
a second ion exchanger loaded with hydrogen arranged downstream of the softening system and upstream of an extraction point; and a
a mineralization material which releases calcium, magnesium and/or silicon”
(It is noted that the first ion exchanger being “regenerated using an alkali salt is not a structural element and does not define a structural feature of the first ion exchanger element of the claimed system);
Claim 17 is interpreted as limited to containing the recited structure of claim 16 without being further limiting since recitation of the regenerating alkali salt being “sodium chloride or potassium chloride” does not define a structural feature of the first ion exchanger element of the claimed system;
Claim 25 is interpreted as limited to containing the recited structure of “A cartridge designed for the system of claim 16, comprising:
a first chamber containing the second ion exchanger and
a second chamber containing the mineralization material, thus interpreted as including a cartridge, 1st chamber containing an ion exchanger and 2nd chamber containing a mineralization material, thus not necessarily comprising a softener system including 1st ion exchanger, as recited in claim 16, since the recited cartridge of claim 25 lacks having any chamber or other component which includes such softening system and first ion exchanger; and
Claim 31 is interpreted as limited to any “system adapted to (i.e. “capable of”) conducting the method steps recited in claim 27 of A method for treating drinking water, comprising: directing water through a first ion exchanger which is loaded with sodium ions or potassium ions;
supplying the water to an installation system having a plurality of extraction points; and passing the water first through a second ion exchanger loaded with hydrogen and then through a mineralization material which releases calcium, magnesium, and/or silicon upstream of one of the plurality of extraction points.
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.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In independent claim 16, it is unclear whether “which is regenerated using an alkali salt” positively recites a system structural limitation, since no system component or feature for regenerating of the 1st ion exchanger is present;
it is unclear whether the “extraction point” is a positively recited system structural component, ; and,
it is unclear whether “arranged downstream” and “followed by” are reciting structural relationships between the softening system, second ion exchanger and mineralization material” since the claim is silent regarding any means or structure communicating or directing flow between the units.
Each of claims 18 and 19 are grammatically confusing, in each claim, “the” is needed between “is in” and “form of granules”.
In claim 20, it is unclear how many different combinations of materials are recited which the “mineralization material” may comprise; (it is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “…mineralization material consists of one or more of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide…and silicon dioxide”).
In claim 25, it is unclear how the cartridge, in itself, is designed for the system of claim 16 since it is recited as comprising only a first chamber containing the second ion exchanger of claim 16 and a second chamber containing the mineralization material of claim 16, without comprising any structure for a (the) first ion exchanger of claim 16 (is such cartridge designed for only the second ion exchanger and mineralization material components or features of system claim 16?).
In claim 27, “passing…upstream of one of the plurality of extraction points” is inconsistent with the preceding method step which comprises “supplying of the water to a plurality of extraction points.
Claim 31 is indefinite since it requires adaptation to carry out the method of claim 27, which in itself is indefinite as above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 16 from which it depends, since no new structural components or features of the system corresponding to regenerating the first ion exchanger specifically with sodium chloride or potassium chloride alkali salts are recited.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 16-22, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith patent 5,174,901 in view of Nelson et al PGPUBS Document US 2021/0147266 (Nelson).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 16, Smith discloses a system for treating drinking water (col 1, ln 5-8), comprising:
a softening system 18 including a first ion exchanger (col 2, ln 67-col 3, ln 3 regarding softener 18 operable to exchange divalent and trivalent cations for sodium ions);
a second ion exchanger 26 (col 3, ln 46-55 regarding a cation polisher which removes cations and exchanges them for hydrogen ions) 4, ln 15-17 regarding delivery taps or faucets 36 for dispensing purified water) ; followed by
a mineralization material which releases calcium, magnesium and/or silicon (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate polisher).
Claim 16, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Smith by requiring wherein the 2nd ion exchanger is “loaded” with hydrogen.
Nelson teaches a system for providing drinking water for domestic water supply systems or dispensers [0001], comprising an acidic, cationic ion exchanger and mineralization system [0055-0061, 0104, 0106, and 0177-0184]. Nelson teaches the ion exchanger as being operative to exchange protons of hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger (thus the exchanger being loaded with hydrogen) for the cations in the water .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of purifying water so as to provide drinking water, to have modified the Smith system by utilizing an acidic cationic exchanger, which has hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger and is thus loaded with hydrogen, as taught by Nelson, to have ensured thoroughly removing cationic impurities in the water.
Recitations in claim 16 of the first ion exchanger being regenerated using an alkali salt, and further recitation in claim 17 of such alkali salt being sodium or potassium chloride are deemed to be of little or no patentable weight, since no system corresponding system features adapted to provide or direct regenerating material to the 1st ion exchanger are present in the claims.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states 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.”
Optionally, if claims 16 and 17 are modified so as to positively recite such regeneration corresponding to one or more system structural features, then Katzakian et al patent 5,665,783 would be applied as teaching regeneration of polycarboxylic acid cation exchange resins used in water treatment which are loaded with sodium and potassium ions, with such sodium or potassium chloride alkali salts.
For claims 18 and 19, Smith further discloses wherein the mineralization material comprises calcium carbonate (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate polisher), while Nelson further teaches wherein the mineralization material is in form of granules with an average particle size from 0.5 to 10 mm, or specifically from 2 to 6 mm for claim 19 (see [0034, 0037-0039 re the mineralization material being in the form of particles or granules of plural particles, with such granules or particles having an average particle size in the range of 0.05-20 mm, or more preferably 0.2-2 mm, thus encompassing or overlapping the claimed particle size range]).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to have utilized such granular mineralization materials and particle size, as cumulatively taught by Smith and Nelson, in order to provide drinking water having a precise, reliable dose of a balance of mineral composition and alkalinity, and in a form allowing a rapid and effective replenishment of mineral, needed for suitable drinking water (all suggested by Nelson at [0026]) .
For claim 20, Smith further discloses wherein the mineralization material comprises calcium carbonate (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate).
For claim 21, Smith and Nelson cumulatively teach or suggest wherein the mineralization material comprises calcium hydroxide granules and magnesium carbonate granules [0057-0060 re one or more mineral sources comprising magnesium carbonate and calcium-containing minerals such as calcined magnesium-containing minerals, calcined brucite or calcareous dolomite] and [0034, 0037-0039 re the mineralization material being in the form of particles or granules of plural particles, with such granules or particles having an average particle size in the range of 0.05-20 mm, or more preferably 0.2-2 mm, thus encompassing or overlapping the claimed particle size range]); while Smith discloses that the mineralization material comprises calcium carbonate (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to have utilized such combination of granular mineralization materials, as cumulatively taught by Smith and Nelson, in order to provide drinking water having a precise, reliable dose of a balance of mineral composition and alkalinity, and in a form allowing a rapid and effective replenishment of mineral, needed for suitable drinking water (all suggested by Nelson at [0026]) .
For claim 22, Smith further discloses a common housing for containing a first chamber containing an ion exchanger and a second chamber containing the mineralization material (see column 4, lines 47-50 re “containment vessel of the system”).
For claim 25, Smith further discloses a common housing for containing a first chamber containing an ion exchanger and a second chamber containing the mineralization material (see column 4, lines 47-50 re “containment vessel of the system”).
Additionally, Nelson teaches a cartridge for containing a flow reactor chamber containing the mineralization material.
Thus, Smith and Nelson cumulatively suggest a common cartridge housing for containing a first chamber containing an ion exchanger and a second chamber containing the mineralization material.
For claim 27, Smith discloses a method for treating drinking water (col 1, ln 5-8), comprising:
directing water through a first ion exchanger which is loaded with sodium ions or potassium ions (softening system 18 including a first ion exchanger described at col 2, ln 67-col 3, ln 3 regarding softener 18 operable to exchange divalent and trivalent cations for sodium ions which it becomes loaded with);
supplying the water to an installation system having a plurality of extraction points (col 4, ln 15-17 regarding delivery taps or faucets 36 for dispensing purified water);
passing the water first through a second ion exchanger 26 (col 3, ln 46-55 regarding a cation polisher which removes cations and exchanges them for hydrogen ions) loaded with hydrogen arranged downstream of the softening system and upstream of an extraction point; followed by
passing the water through a mineralization material which releases calcium, magnesium, and/or silicon upstream of one of the plurality of extraction points (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate polisher).
Claim 27, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Smith by requiring wherein the 2nd ion exchanger is “loaded” with hydrogen.
Nelson teaches a method for providing drinking water for domestic water supply systems or dispensers [0001], comprising an acidic, cationic ion exchanger and mineralization system [0055-0061, 0104, 0106, and 0177-0184]. Nelson teaches the ion exchanger as being operative to exchange protons of hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger (thus the exchanger being loaded with hydrogen) for the cations in the water .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of purifying water so as to provide drinking water, to have modified the Smith method by utilizing an acidic cationic exchanger, which has hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger and is thus loaded with hydrogen, as taught by Nelson, to have ensured thoroughly removing cationic impurities in the water.
For claim 28, Smith further suggests the method comprising adjusting the water to an acidic pH, however lacks such pH being between 5.8 and 6.5 by the second ion exchanger (column 3, lines 46-53 regarding the water passing through 2nd ion exchanger 26 being acidified.
Such pH parameter is deemed to constitute a results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize acidity of the water and removal of the majority of the cations which are present from an intermediate step of reverse osmosis treatment which can vary dependent upon desired amount of ionized impurities and total dissolved solids removed by reverse osmosis treatment (column 3, lines 7-22 and 33-36).
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 30, Nelson teaches the method step of using the mineralization material being operable to adjust the water to a calcium content of between 15 to 30 mg/l, and/or to a magnesium content between 20 to 30 mg/l (see [0146] and the Table at [0218] re Mg content of the mineralized water).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have added an amount of mineralization material effective to yield a magnesium content between 20 to 30 mg/l, as taught by Nelson, so as to sufficiently mineralize the water so as to be used as drinking water [0145]
For claim 31, Smith in view of Nelson cumulatively teach a system adapted to carry out the method according to claim 27.
Smith discloses a method and corresponding system for treating drinking water as recited in claim 27 (col 1, ln 5-8), comprising:
directing water through a first ion exchanger of a system which is loaded with sodium ions or potassium ions (softening system 18 including a first ion exchanger described at col 2, ln 67-col 3, ln 3 regarding softener 18 operable to exchange divalent and trivalent cations for sodium ions which it becomes loaded with);
supplying the water to an installation system having a plurality of extraction points (col 4, ln 15-17 regarding delivery taps or faucets 36 for dispensing purified water);
passing the water first through a second ion exchanger 26 of the system (col 3, ln 46-55 regarding a cation polisher which removes cations and exchanges them for hydrogen ions) loaded with hydrogen arranged downstream of the softening system and upstream of an extraction point; followed by
passing the water through a mineralization material of the system which releases calcium, magnesium, and/or silicon upstream of one of the plurality of extraction points (col 2, ln 55-59 and col 3, ln 46-53 re a bed of calcium carbonate 28, or calcium carbonate polisher).
Claim 27 differs from Smith by requiring wherein the 2nd ion exchanger is “loaded” with hydrogen.
Nelson teaches a method for providing drinking water for domestic water supply systems or dispensers [0001], comprising an acidic, cationic ion exchanger and mineralization system [0055-0061, 0104, 0106, and 0177-0184]. Nelson teaches the ion exchanger as being operative to exchange protons of hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger (thus the exchanger being loaded with hydrogen) for the cations in the water .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of purifying water so as to provide drinking water, to have modified the Smith method by utilizing an acidic cationic exchanger, which has hydrogen ions bound to the functional groups of the cation exchanger and is thus loaded with hydrogen, as taught by Nelson, to have ensured thoroughly removing cationic impurities in the water.
Claims 23, 24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith patent 5,174,901 in view of Nelson et al PGPUBS Document US 2021/0147266 (Nelson), as applied to claims 16-22, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 above, and further in view of the Escapenet translation of Japanese patent publication 2016-78001 (Publication ‘001).
Claim 23 and 26 further differ by requiring wherein a backstop is arranged between the two separate chambers.
Publication ‘001 teaches, as detailed in the Escapenet publication, a water softening system including a tank filled with ion exchange resin 2 for domestic water [0002-0004], and also teaches a backflow preventer (or “backstop” ), in the form of a backflow prevention mechanism 17 which comprises a pair of check valves for preventing backflow of water in a channel connecting the water inlet and water softening tank [0023-0024]. Publication ‘001 teaches that such backflow preventer or backstop prevents water from flowing back into an inlet pipe of a water main when the water supply pressure decreases.
It would have thus been further obvious to the skilled artisan in systems comprising water softeners for providing drinking and other forms of domestic water, to have further modified the system of Smith , by utilizing a backstop as claimed, in order to prevent water from flowing back into an inlet pipe of a water main when the water supply pressure decreases.
Claims 24 and 29 further differ by requiring wherein the system or corresponding method further comprises a bypass for directing water around the second ion exchanger and/or the mineralization material, claim 29 requiring directing bypassed water to a further extraction point without passing through second ion exchanger and/or the mineralization material.
Publication ‘001 teaches, as detailed in the Escapenet publication, a water softening system including a tank filled with ion exchange resin 2 for domestic water [0002-0004], with a bypass being selectively routed through a bypass channel 5 being routed around the tank and ion exchange resin to a further extraction point in the form of an outlet channel 4, with such bypassed flow utilized for regenerating the ion exchange resin of the water softener (figures and [0021]).
Thus, it would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Smith system by providing such a bypass around one of the ion exchangers, such as the second ion exchanger, as suggested by publication ‘001, in order to economically provide a readily available source of ion exchanger regeneration flow.
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 Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
08/17/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights