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 1-8 are currently pending
Claims 1-8 are currently amended
Claims 1-8 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/05/2024 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.
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be on a separate sheet/page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states A RO water purifier” and instead should state “A reverse osmosis (RO) water purifier” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 7, 8 and 10 each state “said purifier” and instead should each state “said RO water purifier” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. ADDITIONALLY, lines 12-13 state “said user interface” and instead should state “said user-interface” to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The water purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The water purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The water purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, Examiner suggests to add punctuation at the end of lines 3 and 4. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The water purifier” and instead should state “The RO water purifier” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “said user interface” and instead should state “said user-interface” to maintain consistency. ADDITIONALLY, lines 2-3 state “to dispense hot, cold, or ambient purified water” and instead should state “to dispense the hot, cold, or ambient purified water” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a RO membrane configured to work under an operating pressure,” on line 4 of claim 1, and “wherein said device for heating or cooling the purified ambient water is configured to heat the water…or alternatively, is configured to cool it” on lines 15-17 of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein said purifier comprises a compartment to store pre-heated or pre-cooled purified water, comprising an inlet and an outlet,” on lines 8-9. It is unclear and confusing what is comprising an inlet and an outlet, the water purifier or the compartment? FURTHERMORE, claim 1 recites the limitation “where it remains…” on lines 11-12. It is unclear and confusing what is Applicant referring to by reciting ‘it’? Claims 2-8 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a device” on line 4. It is unclear and confusing if Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a device’ as recited on line 5 of claim 1, or a different device?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said pressure” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said first outlet…said second outlet…said third outlet…said further inlet” on lines 3-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG GUOSHENG et al. (CN 113830950 A) (hereinafter “Jiang”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 1:
Jiang teaches a RO water purifier (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 2, 7, 23, n0021-n0025, and n0032) comprising:
an inlet for raw water comprising a pressure reducing valve (see FIG. 1, an inlet valve 31, and/or a reversing valve, and/or a switch valve, and/or a concentrate valve 37) (see paragraph n0022);
a booster pump (see FIG. 1, a booster pump 14) (see paragraph n0022) (see paragraph 13) (see paragraph n0024 further describing a delivery pump 12);
a RO membrane configured to work under an operating pressure (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022),
a device for heating or cooling purified ambient water (see FIG. 1, a heating element 9 further including a heating element 91, and a heat exchange pipeline 5) (see paragraphs 14-15, n0021-n0025 and n0027);
a user-interface for dispensing hot, cold, or ambient purified water (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011); and
a Micro Controller Unit (MCU) (‘control board’) to control functions of said purifier (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011),
wherein said purifier comprises a compartment to store pre-heated or pre-cooled purified water, comprising an inlet and an outlet (see FIG. 1, a water tank 6) (see paragraphs 12, n0021-n0022 and n0024),
wherein, when said purifier is in use, any undispensed purified hot, cold, or ambient water returns into said compartment through said inlet, where it remains pre-heated or pre-cooled, and when a user dispenses water through said user-interface (‘control board’) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011), said pre-heated or pre-cooled purified water flows out of said compartment through said outlet into said device for further heating or cooling it, before being dispensed, and further wherein said device for heating or cooling the purified ambient water is configured to heat the water to 80 to 95ºC or alternatively, is configured to cool it to 15 to 5ºC, and in said compartment said pre-heated water is stored at 40 to 75ºC and when it is pre-cooled it is stored at 10 to 20ºC, and said purified ambient water is at a temperature from 25 to 40ºC (‘control board’) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011).
Furthermore, Jiang teaches a reverse osmosis water purifier system and method including multiple pumps, valves, and a control board capable of operating/adjusting pressures and temperatures of the water throughout the water purifier system, and 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 control board within the water purifier of Jiang to be configured and capable of operating the system under controlled and specified temperature and pressure ranges, as claimed in independent claim 1, for optimization purposes and efficiency (‘control board’) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011).
Regarding Claim 2:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said RO membrane comprises an inlet for water, a first outlet for purified ambient water, a second outlet for recirculation of excess purified ambient water back to said inlet for raw water, and a third outlet leading to the device for heating or cooling said purified ambient water (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022-n0027).
Regarding Claim 3:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said pressure reducing valve reduces pressure if beyond the operating pressure of the RO membrane (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in a conditional form; therefore, does not have to occur) (see FIG. 1, an inlet valve 31, and/or a reversing valve, and/or a switch valve, and/or a concentrate valve 37) (see paragraph n0022).
Regarding Claim 4:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said booster pump increases said pressure if it is lower than said operating pressure (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in a conditional form; therefore, does not have to occur) (see FIG. 1, a booster pump 14) (see paragraph n0022) (see paragraph 13) (see paragraph n0024 further describing a delivery pump 12).
Regarding Claim 5:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said operating pressure is 0.5 to 1.0 MPa (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011).
Jiang teaches a reverse osmosis water purifier system and method including multiple pumps, valves, and a control board capable of operating/adjusting pressures and temperatures of the water throughout the water purifier system, and 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 control board within the water purifier of Jiang to be configured and capable of operating the system under controlled and specified temperature and pressure ranges for optimization purposes and efficiency (‘control board’) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011).
Regarding Claim 6:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said compartment comprises a further inlet for inflow of purified ambient water from the RO membrane (see FIG. 1, a water tank 6) (see paragraphs 12, n0021-n0022 and n0024).
Regarding Claim 7:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein:
said first outlet is provided with an ambient water solenoid valve (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022-n0027);
said second outlet is provided with a recirculation solenoid valve (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022-n0027);
said third outlet is provided with a further solenoid valve (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022-n0027); and,
said further inlet is provided with an ambient water solenoid valve (see FIG. 1, a second filter element 22) (see paragraphs 10, 23, n0010, and n0022-n0027) (see FIG. 1, an inlet valve 31, and/or a reversing valve, and/or a switch valve, and/or a concentrate valve 37) (see paragraph n0022).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jiang teaches the RO water purifier according to claim 1 wherein said user-interface comprises plurality of buttons for providing options to dispense the hot, cold, or ambient purified water at temperature ranging from 5 to 95ºC (see paragraphs n0008, 22, and n0023).
Jiang teaches a reverse osmosis water purifier system and method including multiple pumps, valves, and a control board capable of operating/adjusting pressures and temperatures of the water throughout the water purifier system, and 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 control board within the water purifier of Jiang to be configured and capable of operating the system under controlled and specified temperature and pressure ranges for optimization purposes and efficiency (‘control board’) (see paragraphs 22, 24, and n0011).
Other Reference Considered
KIM CHANG JIN et al. (KR 20140071834 A) (hereinafter “Kim”) (see attached English description) teaches a water treatment apparatus and method including sterilizing water inside a water tank for drinking purposes.
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