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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 33-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 33 and 34 recite ‘wherein the first and second tanks comprise an overflow outlet. The tanks do not share the same overflow outlet. It is recommended applicant amend the claim to recite ‘wherein the first and second tanks each comprise an overflow outlet’.
Claim 35 should be amended to recite ‘the overflow outlets are provided in each of the first tank and second tank at a level’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded that a claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 31 and 36 is 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 31 recites the limitation "the first pump" and “the second pump” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as if it were dependent on claim 26 where the first and second pump are introduced.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the first pump" and “the second pump” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as if it were dependent on claim 26 where the first and second pump are introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2018-176033 to SATO.
With regard to claim 24, SATO teaches an apparatus ([0009] and [0015] of the machine English translation provided herein), the apparatus comprising: a first tank arranged to receive water from a water supply (tank 2); a reverse osmosis system arranged to receive and process water from the water supply (11, [0017]); a demineralisation system, in fluidic communication with the reverse osmosis system, for treating the water treated by the reverse osmosis system (deionizer 20, [0021]); and a second tank in fluidic communication with the demineralisation system (5, [0043]); wherein: the first tank is arranged to receive untreated water from the water supply (Figure 1), and the second tank is arranged to receive the water treated by the demineralisation system (Figure 1).
Regarding the recitation, ‘for washing vehicles’ the apparatus of SATO is for producing pure water and thus it would be fully capable of washing a vehicle. Regarding the recitation of the first tank ‘configured to supply such water for pre-washing the vehicle’ and the second tank ‘configured to supply such water for rinsing the vehicle’, the apparatus of SATO has fluid outlet lines from the first and second tank. Thus the water from the first tank would be fully capable of prewashing the vehicle from L4 and the water from the second tank would be fully capable of rinse the vehicle from L10. The manner in which an apparatus operates is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regard to claim 25, SATO teaches the first tank is further configured to receive waste water from the reverse osmosis system (Figure 1).
With regard to claim 29, SATO teaches a first inlet for receiving water from the water supply, the first inlet being in fluidic communication with the first tank and the reverse osmosis system (see top of tank Figure 1).
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 26-28, 31, 38, 39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176033 to SATO in view of US 2012/0325733 to OSTROBROD.
With regard to claim 26, SATO teaches the second tank is connected to a pump (6). SATO does not teach that the pump 6 has variable pressure. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that variable pressure pumps are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention make the pump 6 of SATO to be a variable pressure pump with reasonable expectation of success to be able to adjust the pressure of the clean water that is being dispensed.
SATO does not explicitly teach that the pump 6 is connected to a hose. However, it is known in the art to have a clean water line from a filtration system connected to a hose, as taught by OSTROBROD ([0025]). This allows for easily delivery of the clean fluid to its point of use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clean water outlet in apparatus taught by SATO to have the hose as taught by OSTROBROD with reasonable expectation of success to allow for the user to deliver clean water to the point of use.
SATO does not explicitly teach a first adjustable pressure pump, in fluidic communication with the first tank, connectable to a first hose. However, it is known in the art to have outlet lines from a RO filter connect to a pump and a hose for supplying the RO waste water as prewash water, as taught by OSTROBROD ([0014], [0026] and [0031]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of SATO to include the outlet line from the RO filter connect to a pump and hose as taught by OSTROBROD to utilize the waste water for a prewash.
With regard to claim 27, OSTROBROD teaches the first and second host are retractable onto respective reels ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SATO to include the reels of OSTROBROD to keep the hoses tidy and organized.
With regard to claim 28, the recitation “the first hose is connectable to a first quick-release pressure vessel”, and “the second hose is connectable to a second quick-release pressure vessel” is merely intended use of the first and second hose. The manner in which an apparatus operates is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The apparatus of SATO/OSTROBROD has a first and second hose and thus it is reasonably expected that they would be capable of connecting to a quick release pressure vessel since hoses routinely connect to vessels. It is noted that the first and second quick-release pressure vessels are not positively recited by the claim.
The recitations “optionally wherein the apparatus further comprises the first quick-release pressure vessel and the second quick-release pressure vessel; optionally wherein the first quick-release pressure vessel comprises a detergent, and the second quick-release pressure vessel comprises a hydrophobic treatment agent“ are optional and thus do not differentiate over the prior art.
With regard to claim 31, OSTROBROD teaches the pumps for the system are mounted onto a single plate first pump and the second pump are releasably mounted onto a single plate ([0024] and Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SATO/OSTROBROD have the pumps mounted on a single plate, as taught by OSTROBROD to aid in portability of the system. Neither OSTROBROD nor SATO explicitly teach that the pumps are releasably mounted on the plate; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the pumps be releasably mounted in case one needed to be changed out for maintenance. It has been held that making parts separable would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 Section V(C).
With regard to claim 38, OSTROBROD further teaches that the apparatus can be self contained within a housing (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SATO to be self contained within a housing, as taught by OSTROBROD, with reasonable expectation of success to allow the system to be easily moved from location to location ([0022] of OSTROBROD).
With regard to claims 39 and 42, OSTROBROD teaches the tanks and pumps are contained within a central portion of the housing and the hose is extendable from a peripheral portion of the housing (Figure 1) and a storage portion for storing a battery ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device taught by SATO/OSTROBROD to have the tanks and pumps in the central portion of the housing and the hoses on the peripheral portion of the housing, as suggested by OSTROBROD, with no change to their respective function, for the purpose of providing a movable system that can easily be moved from location to location. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination, (i.e. the combination of known elements into a single device) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Regarding the limitation that requires the first hose being extendable from different peripheral portions of the housing, there are a finite number of options available for the placement of the hoses, either on the same peripheral portion or different peripheral portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to put the hoses of SATO/OSTROBROD on different peripheral portions on the housing to prevent the hoses from being tangled as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176033 to SATO in view of US 5,820,765 to JOUNG ET AL.
With regard to claim 30, SATO does not teach the apparatus comprises a meter for measuring the quality of the water received from the water supply, and for measuring the water quality of the treated water. However, it is known in the art to have a meter to measure the quality of water received from the water supply and a meter to measure the quality of treated water, as taught by JOUNG (col 3 ln 3-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of SATO to include water quality meters to measure the fresh water supply quality and treated water supply quality, as taught by JOUNG, with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the system is working properly.
Claims 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176033 to SATO in view of US 2021/0047221 to KIRKENDALL.
With regard to claim 32, SATO teaches the second tank comprises a second float valve operable to shut off a supply inlet of water treated by the demineralisation system ([0044]) but remains silent as to the first tank having a float valve to shut off a supply inlet of untreated water from the water supply. However, it is known in the art to have a float valve that opens and shut a supply of untreated water from a water supply as taught by KIRKENDALL ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SATO to include a float valve in the first tank for controlling the water supply, as suggested by KIRKENDALL, with reasonable expectation of success to control the filling of the first tank.
With regard to claim 33, SATO does not explicitly teach an overflow outlet on the first and second tanks. However, it is known in the art to include an overflow outlet on a tank to prevent overfilling and equalize pressure in a tank, as taught by KIRKENDALL ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second tank in apparatus taught by SATO to have an overflow outlet, as taught by KIRKENDALL, with reasonable expectation of success to prevent overfilling and equalize pressure in a tank.
With regard to claim 34, SATO does not explicitly teach an overflow outlet on the first and second tanks. However, it is known in the art to include an overflow outlet on a tank to prevent overfilling and equalize pressure in a tank, as taught by KIRKENDALL ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second tank in apparatus taught by SATO to have an overflow outlet, as taught by KIRKENDALL, with reasonable expectation of success to prevent overfilling and equalize pressure in a tank.
Neither SATO nor KIRKENDALL teach that the first float valve is configured to shut off the supply of untreated water at a lower water level in the first tank than the water level in the second tank at which the second float valve shuts off the supply of water treated by the demineralisation system. However, there are a finite number of options available for the location of the low water level in the first tank versus the low water level of the second tank: higher, the same, or lower. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have low water level of the first tank be lower than the low water level of the second tank in the apparatus of SATO/KIRKENDALL to ensure that proper pressure is maintained in the RO filter and deionization system and that there is a desired amount of clean water available in the second tank as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
With regard to claim 35, SATO and KIRKENDALL does not explicitly teach that the overflow outlet are provided in each of the first tank and second tank at a level below that of the supply inlet of each respective float valve. However, there are a finite number of options available for the location of the overflow outlets in relation to the supply inlet of each float valve: above, equal or below the supply inlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the overflow outlet below the supply inlet on the tanks of SATO/KIRKENDALL to prevent the tank from overfilling and backflow flowing into the inlet supply lines as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176033 to SATO in view of US 2012/0325733 to OSTROBROD, as applied to claim 26 above, and in further view of US 2021/0047221 to KIRKENDALL.
With regard to claim 36, SATO does not explicitly teach a one way valve between the first tank and the first pump and a one-way valve between the second tank and the second pump. However, it is known in the art to utilize a one way valve between a storage tank and a pump, as taught by KIRKENDALLL (Figure 4 and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device taught by SATO/OSTROBROD to include a valve between each tank and pump, suggested by KIRKENDALL, with reasonable expectation of success to maintain the desired flow to the pump and the desired fluid level in the tank.
With regard to claim 37, SATO teaches a first inlet for receiving water from the water supply, the first inlet being in fluidic communication with the first tank and the reverse osmosis system (see top of tank Figure 1). While SATO does not explicitly teach a one-way valve between the first water supply and the first inlet, one of ordinary skill in the art has strong reason to believe that a one way valve would be present as there is not non-stop flow from the water supply in the first tank. If there was not a one-way valve in the supply line, there would be no way to shut off the water from the supply to the tank, causing constant flow into the system.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176033 to SATO in view of US 2012/0325733 to OSTROBROD, as applied to claim 39 above, in further view of US 5,116,425 to RUEF.
With regard to claims 40 and 41, SATO and OSTROBROD remain silent as to a first gauge for displaying the volumetric contents of the first tank; and a second gauge for displaying the volumetric contents of the second tank, as recited by claim 40, and that the gauges are sight gauges as recited by claim 41. However, it is well known in the art to provide a sight gauge for determining the amount of fluid in a tank so that the operator can readily determine the amount of fluid left in the tank, as taught by RUEF (col 7 ln 65-col 8 ln 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second tank of SATO/OSTROBROD to have sight gauges, as taught by RUEF, with reasonable expectation of success to allow the operator to view the liquid level in the tanks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN W SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-5545. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
KATELYN W. SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749