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 .
This application is in response to a RCE filed on 10/31/2025.
Claim 6-8 are pending. Applicant has cancelled claim 5 and added new claims 6-8.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 recites “processed water” which is not supported in applicant’s specification. Although applicant recites and makes remarks on page 7 filed on 10/31/2025 that regular water can be processed into “Permanently Structured Water” and applicant recites in the specification that product comprising “Permanently Structured Water…” (see pages 6-8) but no wherein the specification discloses anything related to a product comprising a processed water having oxygen down take rate shorter in time than regular water or an oxygen uptake rate that is shorter in time than regular water or a cooler surface area temperature than regular water.
Regarding dependent claims 7-8, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 6 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 6-8 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.
Claims 6-7 recites “regular water” which is not clear asto what type of regular water is being referred to as such as is it tap water, sea water, lake water, salt water, rainwater. Clarification is requested. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted regular water as regular tap water.
Claims 6-7 recites “processed water” which is not clear asto what is considered as processed water. Is the bottled water considered process water or deionized water considered to be process water. For examining purpose, Examiner cannot make any interpretation based on the applicant’s specification. Clarification is requested.
Claims 7-8 recites “flow form” which is not clear what flow form means. For example if “flow form” refers to “flowform” trade name and if it is the trade name which is not allowed to refer to trade name in a claim as different products might be sold under the same trade name. Clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 7-8, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 6 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurenzi (US PGPUB No.: 20170135295 A1), further evidence supported by Danielle Pilarinos : “Structured Water Made Simple-Everything You Need to Know About Structured Water”, pages 1-5, July 2024, Biomagnetic Health.
As per Claim 6, Laurenzi discloses structured water(i.e., process water) which has specific characteristics such as increased absorption, accelerated plant growth, better plant health, greater quality and quantity of plant yield and wherein the structured water has oxidation reduction potential of -1 mV to -1100 mV compared to regular tap water having oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of +100mV up to +800mV (reads on claimed limitation of processed water having oxygen down take rate compared to regular tap water since the ORP value is lower for processed water compared to regular tap water, paragraphs 0019-0023, 0031, 0013, abstract, figures 1-2). Laurenzi does not disclose oxygen rate being shorter in time for processed water compared to regular water and/or cooler surface area temperature than regular water.
However, since Laurenzi discloses the structured water (i.e., process water) which has lower ORP value (negative ORP) compared to regular tap water (i.e., regular water, positive ORP) then it would be obvious and also it is known that it would be shorter in time than regular water as negative ORP has faster downtake rate and unstable so quickly consumed versus regular water having positive ORP which is more stable. Further this would also have cooler surface area temperature than regular water which is supported by evidence by Danielle Pilarinos : “Structured Water Made Simple” which mentions that structured water (i.e., processed water) is below the dew point 100 degrees Fahrenheit (below 37°C ) which would be much cooler in surface temperature than regular water (see page 3 of the evidence taught by Danielle, meets claim 5 limitation of processed water with oxygen down take rate and cooler surface area temperature).
Further Regarding claim 6, notwithstanding the method steps taught by Laurenzi, the process limitations of the instant claims (i.e., process of the oxygen down take rate measured by the oxygen uptake rate measured by cooler surface measured by”) are not considered to provide any structural definition over the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 7-8, Although Laurenzi et al does not explicitly teach processed water is obtainable by passing regular water through at least one flow form and at least one modified material that is placed close to where the regular water moves through the at least one flow form so that processed water is produced, wherein the at least one modified material is modified fluorite material comprising CaF2 and wherein at least one flow form is shaped as an integer 8 and wherein the regular water comprises tap water, sea water, lake water, salt water or rain as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Laurenzi et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same product comprising processed water as that of instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025, see remarks on pages 6-10, related to cited prior art references over Laurenzi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0135295 Al) and further evidence supported by Danielle Pilarinos, "Structured Water Made Simple-Everything You Need to Know About Structured Water", pages 1-5, July 2024, Biomagnetic Health" ("Pilarinos") have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Laurenzi, however, fails to teach or suggest Applicant's claimed product comprising a processed water having the specifically claimed properties, i.e., an oxygen down take rate shorter in time than regular water or an oxygen uptake rate that is shorter in time than regular water, or a cooler surface area temperature than regular water. Specifically, Laurenzi fails to teach or suggest the claimed properties of the oxygen rate being shorter in time for structured water compared to regular water and/or cooler surface area temperature than regular water”.
“The inventor of the present invention, Jesper Bendsen, provided a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 with the last response. First, it should be noted that in item 3 of the Declaration, the inventor explains that invention was named 'Permanently Structured Water' solely to refer to the water processed and modified as disclosed, only because it was the closest phenomenon to the invention. That is, while the invention is a structured water, it is not a conventional 'Structured Water', such as the 'Magnet Structured Water' described in the cited references Laurenzi, Pilarinos, as well as US2018/0368340 A1.
Indeed, the 'Magnet Structured Water, as disclosed in the cited references Laurenzi, Pilarinos, as well as US2018/0368340 Al does not possess the same properties as the claimed "processed water", or 'Permanently Structured Water' as discussed throughout the instant specification.
The inventor explained that these 3 documents (in item 2 of the Declaration) describe created structured water using magnets and disclose the property of oxidation reduction potential (ORP) as way to describe the effects of structuring the water with magnets. However, there is no described relation between ORP and speed of dissolved oxygen down take rate or uptake rate in a vacuum chamber. Nor do these papers mention that the speed of ORP in a vacuum chamber will be faster using the measuring method described in the present application. In particular, the inventor declares that the acknowledged theory is that known structured water, including 'Magnet Structured Water' because of the water's structure "will resist fast dissolved oxygen down take and uptake rate in a vacuum chamber." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the 'Magnet Structured Water' does not possess the same properties as claimed. Permanently Structured Water, i.e., or processed water has claimed, has the opposite effect. The dissolved oxygen down take and uptake rate will be faster than structured water including 'Magnet Structured Water'.
To demonstrate the difference between the claimed invention's processed water, or 'Permanently Structured Water', and the 'Magnet Structured Water" the inventor has measured the properties of the oxygen down take rate and the oxygen uptake rate as recited in claim 5. These results are shown in two graphs”.
The examiner respectfully traverses as follow:
a. Laurenzi and Pilarinos discloses the product comprising processed water having substantially similar properties of oxygen rate and surface being cooler as disclosed above. Further, as previously mentioned in the office action, presently claimed invention is directed to product claim as disclosed above and not process claim and product can utilize any process but if the applicant believes the claimed process steps is critical in obtaining presently claimed invention, then applicant need to show the unexpected data with cited prior art references versus claimed invention. Further applicant mainly argues about the magnet structured water identified in the US2018/0368340 but however, this is not the cited reference used in rejection disclosed above and nowhere in the cited reference taught by Laurenzi (US20170135295) discloses about magnet structured water. Therefore, Magnet structured water as disclosed in Laurenzi does not possess same properties as presently claimed arguments are moot since examiner has not used or cited US2018/0368340 which utilizes magnet structured water. Further applicant needs to show unexpected results with side-by-side comparison with the actual steps listed out asto how the experiments were performed for both tap water and permanently or processed water vs cited prior art reference taught by Laurenzis since there is not enough information or evidence provided on how these data are obtained in the declaration provided on 03/31/2025. In addition, declaration provided does not commensurate with scope of the presently claimed invention since there is not any side-by-side comparison with actual steps performed for obtaining unexpected results for oxygen up take rate, oxygen down take rate and surface area temperature of permanently structured water or process water comparing with regular or tap water showing unexpected results. Numbers of oxygen up take rate, oxygen down take rate were provided but does not provide enough information asto how these numbers are obtained such as what steps were taken and how the values achieved for both permanently structured water or process water comparing with regular or tap water as well as comparing with the cited prior art reference. Therefore, the rejection is maintained using the previously cited references.
b. Further cancellation of claim 5 overcomes the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of record. However, amendment to claims by adding new claims 6-8 necessitated new set of 112(b) and 112(a) rejection as set forth above. In addition, rejection is maintained for 112(a) for process water as nowhere in the specification disclose “processed water having…” while specification does disclose “permanently structured water (PSW) having…”. Further 112(b) is also maintained for regular water as applicant did not amend the claim to identify which type of regular water is being referred as since regular water can be tap water, sea water, lake water, salt water, rainwater so clarification is required in the claim.
c. Further, amendment to the specification for amending the title overcome the objection to the specification for the title of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. 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. 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 02/11/2026