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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avakian (US 2009/0289011 in IDS) in view of Ozone Systems, ClearWater Tech LLC., 1993 in IDS and Abramowitz et al. (US 2002/0158018 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Avakian teaches a water filtering system, comprising: at least one filter (12, 15, 16, 17); a first water tank (13 18 21) configured to store water filtered by the at least one filter (12); and an ozone generator (20) comprising an ozone injector configured to inject ozone generated by the ozone generator into water flowing from the first water tank to the second water tank to generate ozonated water that is stored in the second water tank; (Fig. 1, [0029], and [0037]-[0050]).
Avakian fails to teach an alkaline system having a water regulator and an alkaline filter configured to add minerals into the water. Abramowitz teaches that it is beneficial to include a water regulator (pump) and an alkaline filter configured to add desirable minerals to said water, in order to further treat potable water from a source while providing valuable minerals to said water ([0006]-[0008] and [0020). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an alkaline filter and water regulator/pump in order to further treat potable water from a source making the water alkaline while providing valuable minerals to said water.
Avakian fails to teach an ozone generator protector as claimed. Ozone Systems teach it is beneficial to provide an ozone generator protector as claimed in order to allow for the drainage of the water away from the ozone generator when a check valve protecting the ozone generator might become faulty. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an ozone generator protector in order to further protect the ozone generator from having water damage the structure.
It is noted that as the claims are directed to an apparatus, the claimed structure is what is being examined. Structure that is not positively claimed but can only be inferred in specific situations is not read into the claimed (any further water treatment means for the dispenser and conduits). [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Regarding claim 4, Avakian teaches a dispenser (27 29 30) ) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, a UV system (24) as claimed configured to treat water flowing from the water tank to the dispenser (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Abramowitz teaches that it is beneficial to include an oxygen generator means, such as an electrolytic cell having an oxygen producing anodic cell, in order to further treat potable water from a source while providing valuable minerals to said water ([0010]-[0011] and [0023]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an electrolytic cell having an oxygen producing anodic cell in order to further treat potable water from a source while oxygenating the water.
Regarding claim 9, see claims 1 and 5-6 above. It is noted that as Avakian already teaches multiple dispenser conduits and outlets, providing an additional one for a specific water treated via the oxygenating system would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 12, Avakian teaches multiple tanks (13 18 21) and the second tank as claimed would be tank (13) and the first tank could be either (18) or (21) to read on the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 1 above for inclusion of the alkaline system.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 1 above for details about the water regulator.
Regarding claims 18-19, the claim is directed to how the water regulator is operated and the effects of operating the water regulator. The operation of the taught water regulator would increase or decrease the flow rate and the results claimed would be expected as a result of changing the flow rate. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 9 above for providing multiple outlets for various treated water streams.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avakian (US 2009/0289011) in view of Ozone Systems, ClearWater Tech LLC., 1993 in IDS and Abramowitz et al. (US 2002/0158018 in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoefler (US 2015/0306341).
Regarding claim 2, Avakian teaches the first holding tank after a macro filter of a much larger size and thus fails to teach the filter having a size of 5 or 20 microns. However, as Avakian teaches multiple holding tanks for the water at various points in the system, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide additional holding tanks at different points in the system thereby allowing the capable of holding the water prior to desired treatment to ensure desired flow rates and water for treatment on demand. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide additional holding tanks with aeration means after filters 15, 16, or 17 as desired. This is consistent with case law for duplication of working parts that provide the same benefit (holding water till desired) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Additionally, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to change the sequence of steps/parts for the holding tanks and filter (Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
It is noted that while it would have been obvious to provide multiple filters before the first holding tank as claimed, Avakian does not teach the specific filter size as claimed. Hoefler teaches a water treatment system where water is passed through different filters with one being a 5 micron size filter prior to the water passing through UV treatment and ozone treatment ([0011]) in order to provide multiple stage disinfection and treatment of the water while providing a specific known filter size for accomplishing said treatment with downstream UV and zone treatment steps. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include or provide a 5 micron filter in order to reduce contaminants larger than 5 micron prior to ozone and UV treatment.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avakian (US 2009/0289011) in view of Ozone Systems, ClearWater Tech LLC., 1993 in IDS and Abramowitz et al. (US 2002/0158018 in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Browe (US 2006/0130481).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Avakian teaches the water tank and that pressure in tanks moves the water downstream through the process before dispensed ([0031]). Avakian fails to teach the water tank being a pressure tank. Browe teaches that it is known for water that has been treated prior to being dispensed to be held in a water tank that is pressurized in order to allow for the water to be dispensed when desired ([0030]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to make the water tank in Avakian a pressurized tank in order to ensure flow to the dispenser when needed.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avakian (US 2009/0289011) in view of Ozone Systems, ClearWater Tech LLC., 1993 in IDS and Abramowitz et al. (US 2002/0158018 in IDS) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Waite et al. (US 2013/0220905).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, it would be inherent that some sort of valves or pumps would be included in Avakian in order to control the various flows throughout the system. Avakian fails to teach the means to control flows being solenoid valves. Waite teaches that in systems that treat and provide water to dispensers/point of use, it is known to use solenoid valves to control the various flows within the system to the various components ([0070]-[0081]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a solenoid valve as claimed in order to control the flow within the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avakian (US 2009/0289011) in view of Ozone Systems, ClearWater Tech LLC., 1993 in IDS and Abramowitz et al. (US 2002/0158018 in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Razavi-Shirazi et al. (US 2013/0337518).
Regarding claim 13, Avakian fails to teach an air generator configured to aerate the water stored in the second water tank. Razavi-Shirazi teaches that it is beneficial to provide an air generator/aeration means to various water tanks in a water treatment system in order to keep to water stored therein fresh and to reduce odors ([0339]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide an aeration means for the second water tank in order to keep the water fresh and reduce odors.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claim 1 of present invention is considered in claims 1 and 8 of `359. Claims 2-7 contain subject matter present in claims 2-7 of `359. It is noted that while ozone generator is part of claims 2-7 of `359, one skilled in the art would have found its addition obvious as such an inclusion is part of `359 and is known in the art (see claim 1 above). Similarly, claim 9 is a combination of claims 1, 6, and 8 with the subject matter also reading on claims 12-17 of the present invention. The subject matter of claim 10-11 and 20 is contained in claims 3-4 and 7 of `359. The subject matter of claims 18-19 is considered in claim 14 of `359. Again, the combination with claim 14 is never explicitly claimed in one claim but sch a design is known and including such features as an obvious matter are discussed in the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and provide a terminal disclaimer to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It is noted that claims 8 and 15 are allowable for similar reasons the parent application was allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777