DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, 16, 18, 20, and 22 of copending Application No. 18/294,958 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose the water softening device comprising: a water softening tank that softens raw water including a hardness component with a weakly acidic cation exchange resin to produce soft water; a neutralization tank that neutralizes a pH of the soft water generated by the water softening tank with a weakly basic anion exchange resin; an electrolytic tank that generates acidic electrolyzed water for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin in the water softening tank and alkaline electrolyzed water for regenerating the weakly basic anion exchange resin in the neutralization tank (see claim 1); a water pump that supplies the alkaline electrolyzed water from the electrolytic tank to the neutralization tank (alkaline electrolytic water circulation pump) (see claim 3); a current value detector that detects a current value of the water pump (flow rate detection unit) (see claim 18); and a controller that controls a regeneration treatment of performing (see claim 20), based on the current value detected by the current value detector, at least one of (i) regeneration of the weakly acidic cation exchange resin using the acidic electrolyzed water and (ii) regeneration of the weakly basic anion exchange resin using the alkaline electrolyzed water, wherein the controller, in the regeneration treatment, continues the regeneration treatment when the current value of the water pump detected by the current value detector is more than or equal to a predetermined value, and stops the regeneration treatment and shifts to a hardness component discharge treatment of discharging the hardness component in the water softening device to an outside of the water softening device when the current value of the water pump detected by the current value detector is less than the predetermined value (see claim 20). The claims are directed to a device, not a method. Method limitations only add patentable weigh tot device claims to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same function. As the claims of the copending application disclose all the structural features of the instant invention and a controller it would be capable of the claimed function.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
The claims of the copending application disclose a separation unit in a flow path communicating the electrolytic tank and the neutralization tank (see claim 16). The remaining limitations are directed to the method of operating the device. The claims are directed to a device, not a method. Method limitations only add patentable weigh tot device claims to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same function. As the claims of the copending application disclose all the structural features of the instant invention and a controller it would be capable of the claimed function.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6:
The claims of the copending application disclose water softening device according to Claims 2 and 3, wherein the controller shifts to, after the raw water separation unit washing treatment, a regenerated water replacement treatment of replacing water in a circulation flow path formed in the regeneration treatment with the raw water (see claims 1 and 15). The claims are directed to a device, not a method. Method limitations only add patentable weigh tot device claims to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same function. As the claims of the copending application disclose all the structural features of the instant invention and a controller it would be capable of the claimed function.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the copending application disclose the water softening device according to Claim 3, wherein the controller performs, in parallel (see claim 22), as the hardness component discharge treatment: the acidic separation unit washing treatment; and a regenerated water replacement treatment of replacing water in a circulation flow path formed in the regeneration treatment with the raw water. The claims are directed to a device, not a method. Method limitations only add patentable weigh tot device claims to the extent that the prior art device must be capable of the same function. As the claims of the copending application disclose all the structural features of the instant invention and a controller it would be capable of the claimed function.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim refers to “a current value detector the detects a current value of the water pump”. It is not clear what a “current value” is. Specifically it is not clear if it is any value at the “current” time, a value of the electrical “current” supplied to the water pump, the electrical ”current” of the water flowing through the water pump, or a flow rate (water current) at the water pump. The specification does not clarify this limitation and only teaches that the “current value” is related to the flow rate (see para. 0112, fig. 6 of published specification). For the purposes of examination “current value” will be interpreted as equivalent or directly corresponding to the flow rate.
The claim states “a controller that controls a regeneration treatment…continues the regeneration treatment…stops the regeneration treatment…” These limitations are directed to the method of operation, however the claim is directed to the device. A claim with both process and apparatus is indefinite because it is not clear when direct infringement would occur. It is suggested that the applicant use “configured to” or “capable of” or similar language.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
The claim states “wherein the controller performs…” These limitations are directed to the method of operation, however the claim is directed to the device. A claim with both process and apparatus is indefinite because it is not clear when direct infringement would occur. It is suggested that the applicant use “configured to” or “capable of” or similar language and/or reference the specific flow paths and valves required by the claimed method steps.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6:
The claim states “the controller shifts to…”. A claim with both process and apparatus is indefinite because it is not clear when direct infringement would occur. It is suggested that the applicant use “configured to” or “capable of” or similar language and/or reference the specific flow paths and valves required by the claimed method steps.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim states “the controller performs, in parallel…” A claim with both process and apparatus is indefinite because it is not clear when direct infringement would occur. It is suggested that the applicant use “configured to” or “capable of” or similar language and/or reference the specific flow paths and valves required by the claimed method steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsukamoto et al (JP 2001276631, English machine translation provided) and Gupta (WO 2020/035874). Tsukamoto teaches water softening device comprising: a water softening tank that softens raw water including a hardness component with a weakly acidic cation exchange resin to produce soft water (cation treating section 11); a neutralization tank that neutralizes a pH of the soft water generated by the water softening tank with a weakly basic anion exchange resin (anion treatment section 12); an electrolytic tank that generates acidic electrolyzed water for regenerating the weakly acidic cation exchange resin in the water softening tank and alkaline electrolyzed water for regenerating the weakly basic anion exchange resin in the neutralization tank (electrolytic cell 13) (see Abstract); a water pump that supplies the alkaline electrolyzed water from the electrolytic tank to the neutralization tank (circulation pumps 19 and 20) (see pg. 5, last paragraph). Tsukamoto further teaches a controller (controller is inherent as regeneration is controlled) (see pg. 3, 2nd paragraph from bottom). Gupta teaches a current value detector (flow sensor) that detects a current value of a water pump (sensor 18 indicates performance of the inlet pump 12) (see pg. 8 lines 3-6) and a controller that initiates a cleaning treatment based on the current value (flow rate) being below a predetermined value (see para. 0059). Although the individual elements of the claim are known in the prior art it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the current value detector of Gupta to the pump of Tsukamoto because there is no teaching in Tsukamoto that the flow rate of the pump changes, therefore one would not be motivated to monitor the flow rate (current value).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights