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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending:
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22164824, filed on 03/28/2022.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: leak-proof attachment means and reciprocal means in claim 2. The leak proof attachment means is interpreted to be any suitable means capable of blocking leaks such as seals, threads, clips or similar structure thereof. The reciprocal means is interpreted to be any means such as connector or similar structure thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “said component” in lines 5-6 and “said component” in line 14; it is unclear if said component is referring to the pre-filter component, RO component or post-filter component or something else?
Claim limitation “leak-proof attachment means” and “reciprocal means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the instant specification does not particularly point out what the leak-proof attachment means and reciprocal means are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111 196 641) in view of Narita (DE 10 2013 100 526) and further in view of Sann (US 2012/0018359).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a reverse osmosis (RO) water purification device (system shown in Fig. 8) comprising an integrated waterway (water path 117), a prefilter (PF) (first filter element 210), an RO membrane (M) (second filter element 220 is a reverse osmosis filter element) and a post-filter (PoF) (third filter element 230 and fourth filter element 240) for purification of water, wherein said integrated waterway comprises:
a) a pre-filter component (1) (water passage plate 131) in fluid communication with said pre-filter (PF) (i.e. first filter element 210), where said component (1) (i.e. first water passage plate 131) comprises an input (1a) (water inlet 118) for tap water, a dispensing output (1b) (water outlet hole 119) for pure water, a flow out (1 c) (waste apertures 122) for reject water, an output (1 d) (101)) for flow of said tap water into said prefilter and an input (1e) (second water section 102) for flow back of pre-treated water from said pre- filter (PF),
a… valve (first valve 141) with the pre-filter component (see Fig. 2);…
b) an RO component (4) (second circuit board 132) in fluid communication with said RO membrane (M) (i.e. second filter element 220); and,
c) a post-filter component (2) (third water passage plate 133) in fluid communication with said post-filter (PoF) (a third filter element 230 and a fourth filter element 240), where said component (2) comprises …wherein said pre-filter component (1) is removably connected with said post filter component (2) and said post filter component (2) is removably connected with said RO component (4) via a removable connector (3) (“second waterway plate 132 is detachably disposed at one side of the first waterway plate 131, so that the two waterway plates can be conveniently mounted and fixed, and the waterway plate assembly 100 can be modularized, so that the waterway plate assembly 100 can be conveniently formed and arranged”, see pg. 14; the filters are part of the detachable waterway plate assembly 100),
He does not teach that the valves are (1a) a pilot-operated solenoid valve (1f) having an electro-mechanical solenoid (1g) and a hydraulic part (1h) which is integrally molded with the pre-filter component (1) and (2) a post-filter pilot-operated solenoid valve (2g) (142) having an electro-mechanical solenoid (1b) and a hydraulic part (2i) which is integrally molded with the post-filter component (2); (2) wherein each solenoid valve (1f, 2g) comprises a removable electro-mechanical solenoid and a non-removable hydraulic part which is integrally molded with the pre-filter component (1) and said a post-filter component (2), respectively.
In a related field of endeavor, Narita teaches a solenoid valve (see ABS) comprising pilot-operated solenoid valves (single-piloted solenoid valve, see pg. 11) having an electro-mechanical solenoid (“a solenoid valve comprising an electromagnetic valve body”, see pg. 2; the electromagnetic portion includes actuators 31a and 31b) and a hydraulic part (valves 25a and 25b) and wherein each solenoid valve comprises a removable electro-mechanical solenoid and a non-removable hydraulic part (“one of the manual actuators, in particular the manual actuator 31B to be removed while the other pilot valve 25a and the other hand-operated element 31A continue to be used”, see pg.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify the valves of He to be a pilot-operated solenoid valve (1f) having an electro-mechanical solenoid (1g) and a hydraulic part (1h) and wherein each solenoid valve comprises a removable electro-mechanical solenoid and a non-removable hydraulic part as disclosed by Narita because it provides a valve that can be used while simultaneously removing the actuator (Narita, see pg. 11).
In a related field of endeavor, Sann teaches a filter device (see ABS) comprising a valve integrally molded with a filter (“The filter device…characterized in that the bottom part (5) which forms the element receptacle on the bottom which faces away from the pipe socket (23) forms a part (71) of a valve housing (71, 73) which is integrally molded on and which has an outlet (75)”, see claim 3 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify the valves of He (as modified by Narita) and the pre-filter component and the post-filter component of He such that a filter is integrally molded with a valve as disclosed by Sann because it provides easy mechanical integration (Sann, see ¶16).
Regarding claim 2, He, Narita and Sann teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pre-filter component (1) is removably connected to the post-filter component (2) via leak-proof attachment means (2m, 2n) on said post-filter component (2) (He, corresponds to port sizes on third channel plate 133, see Fig. 4). and reciprocal means on said pre-filter component (1) (He, corresponds to mating structure on water passage plate 131, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, He, Narita and Sann teach the device as claimed in claims 1 comprising a water flow-path between said pre-filter component (1) to the RO component (4) (He, see Fig. 8), said path comprising a pump (P) (He, water pump 150) to pressurize the pre-treated water (He, see Fig. 8).
The combination does not teach that the pump is a diaphragm pump.
In a related field of endeavor, Nagai teaches a reagent preparing apparatus (see ABS) comprising a diaphragm pump (diaphragm pump 45, see ¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify the pump of He to be a diaphragm pump of Nagai because it is applying a conventional pump means to a known water purification system obviously resulting in a suitable pumps means to transfer aggressive chemicals used to clean the water purification system (Nagai, see ¶22) with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 4, He, Narita and Sann teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said connector (3) permits unidirectional flow of purified water and wastewater from RO component (4) to the post-filter component (2) (He, the devices prevent back pressure and back flow thus permitting unidirectional flow).
Regarding claim 5, He, Narita and Sann teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said RO component (4) (He, i.e. 132) comprises an output (4g) in fluid communication with said RO membrane (M) , an inlet (4f) for purified water, an inlet (4e) for reject water from membrane (M), and flow out ports (4m) and (4n) for purified water and reject water (He, the second water route board 132 has a plurality of flow through openings capable of performing the intended uses, see Fig. 4), respectively.
Regarding claim 6, He, Narita and Sann teach the device as claimed in
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights