vs! “111%
`\.\_:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/984,413
`
`08/08/2013
`
`Kenichi Tokuhiro
`
`20296.0022USWO
`
`4464
`
`08/25/2017 —HAMRE, SCHUMANN,MUELLER&LARSONP.C. m
`7590
`53148
`45 South Seventh Street
`ALAM, RASHID A
`Suite 2700
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402- 1683
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`1721
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/25/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/984,413 TOKUHIRO ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`RASHID ALAM its“ 1721
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/31/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1 and 4-27is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1 and4-27is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`SIXI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170623
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`05/31/2017 has been entered.
`
`2.
`
`The applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on 05/31/2017 was
`
`received. Claims 1, 4, 8-12, and 15, were amended. Claims 23-26 were added.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 8-17, 20-21, 23, and 27, are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Yagi (JP 2004-259480 A) in view of Tange (US
`
`2010/0330443 A1) and Schmittman (US 2002/0090868).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Yagi teaches an energy system being a fuel cell system
`
`comprising a cracking unit 1 that is an electrolyzer for generating hydrogen that is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`powered by a solar cell (abstract, [0020]-[0024], [0039], fig. 1). The function of an
`
`electrolyzer is to produce hydrogen by the decomposition of water. Yagi teaches a fuel
`
`cell 3 ([0038], fig. 1). The function of the fuel cell is to generate electricity with a
`
`reaction between the hydrogen generated by the solar hydrogen producing unit and an
`
`oxidizing gas and discharges water as a reaction product ([0004]-[0013]). The fuel cell
`
`comprises of a discharge channel 13 that discharges water that is a reaction product of
`
`the fuel cell (fig. 1, [0020]). The water that is discharged is fed back in to the
`
`electrolyzer for producing hydrogen for the fuel cell ([0020]). This is taken as the water
`
`distribution mechanism of the claims. Yagi teaches a liquid path 13 that is connected to
`
`the fuel cell 3 and the solar hydrogen producing unit 1 (fig. 1, [0020]). However, Yagi is
`
`silent about a water purifier that is on the liquid path such that there is a first liquid path
`
`connecting the fuel cell to the water purifier and a second liquid path connecting the
`
`water purifier to the solar hydrogen producing unit and an external water supply unit.
`
`Tange teaches a fuel cell 70 comprising a hydrogen generating unit 20 (abstract,
`
`fig. 7, [0087]). Thus Tange is analogous art. The fuel cell is connected to a water
`
`distribution line 60 that comprises of a water filter 61 (fig. 7, [0110]). The water filter 61
`
`is taken as the water purifier of the claims. Tange and Yagi both teach a hydrogen
`
`producing unit, a fuel cell, a water supply line, and a water distribution mechanism.
`
`Yagi teaches the water supply line comprises a water filter. The examiner is combining
`
`the references of Tange and Yagi such that the water filter of Tange is added to the
`
`water supply line of Yagi.
`
`It would be obvious to combine the water filter from Tange in
`
`Yagi, because Tange teaches material in system in similar way and this is a simple
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`combination of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable
`
`results. However, Yagi and Tange are silent about a water supply unit receiving
`
`external water.
`
`Schmittman teaches an energy system comprising of a fuel cell 22, a solar
`
`hydrogen producing system 28, 18, and a water distribution system 12, 14, 15,16,20
`
`(abstract, fig. 2, [0017], [0037]-[0038], [0029], [0009], [0010], [0025]). The electrical
`
`source 28 is powered by solar electrical system which powers the hydrogen producing
`
`unit ([0029]). Thus, Schmittman is analogous art. Schmittman teaches an external
`
`water supply 15 (fig. 2). Pre-filtered and purified water could be introduced directly into
`
`the product water storage tank 20 through an external valve 15 ([0025]). This is taken
`
`as the water supply unit receiving external water.
`
`It would be obvious to combine the
`
`water supply unit from Schmittman in Yagi, because Schmittman teaches material in
`
`system in similar way and this is a simple combination of one known prior art element
`
`for another in order to achieve predictable results.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Yagi teaches the electrolyzer, or cracking unit, comprises of a
`
`heat exhaust to remove heat of the water ([0016]). The electrolyzer is part of the water
`
`distribution system (fig. 1). The water passes through components of the system and
`
`residual water is left in the components of the system. Since heat is removed, and the
`
`water passes through the components of the system, which comprises of residual
`
`water, the heat is removed and the water is humidified.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Regarding claim 9, Tange teaches the water is recirculated through the system
`
`and through the filter 61 (fig. 7, [0110]). All of the water is purified and any unreacted
`
`water is also purified. Thus, the water purifier purifies water remaining after the interior
`
`of the stack of the fuel cell is humidified and water serving as a reaction product
`
`discharged from the fuel cell.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Yagi teaches during the electrolysis of water, the
`
`electrolyzer uses a photocatalyst to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen, a
`
`second electrode electrically ([0039]). A photocatalyst is the same semiconductive
`
`material used by the instant application (see published specification [0025]). The
`
`photocatalyst of Yagi is inherently semiconductive in order to function to decompose the
`
`water in to hydrogen.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Yagi teaches a hydrogen storage tank ([0010], [0016]).
`
`Regarding claims 12-14, Yagi and Tange teach as stated above. However, Yagi
`
`and Tange are silent about a water storage equipment and a heat exchanger as a
`
`cooler.
`
`Schmittman teaches the pipe 23 by which the water is flowed is the water
`
`storage equipment and the water is present in the pipe, which is temporarily stored.
`
`Since the claim states “temporarily stored”, the pipe by which the water exits the fuel is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`the water storage equipment (see fig. 2 of Schmittman). Further Schmittman teaches a
`
`heat exchanger 36 which is taken as the first cooler of claims 13 and 14 (fig. 2, [0037]).
`
`It would be obvious to combine the storage of water and the heat exchanger from
`
`Schmittman in Yagi, because Schmittman teaches material in system in similar way and
`
`this is a simple combination of one known prior art element for another in order to
`
`achieve predictable results.
`
`Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yagi and Tange teach as stated above. However,
`
`Yagi and Tange are silent about a heat exchanger as a cooler.
`
`Schmitmann teaches a heat exchanger 36 cooling/condensing the water
`
`discharged from the fuel cell 22 (fig. 2). The heat exchanger 36 is taken as the second
`
`cooler. The examiner is taking the first cooler and the second cooler of the claims to be
`
`the same cooler since they are not differentiated in the claims because they depend on
`
`claim 1.
`
`It would be obvious to combine the heat exchanger from Schmittman in Yagi,
`
`because Schmittman teaches material in system in similar way and this is a simple
`
`combination of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable
`
`results.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Yagi teaches the solar hydrogen producing unit, or the solar
`
`powered electrolyzer which is the cracking unit of Yagi, comprises a housing and an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`electrode unit (fig. 1). Since the hydrogen producing unit is an electrolyzer, it inherently
`
`comprises of an electrode unit to function.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Yagi teaches the system uses hydrogen gas as the fuel gas
`
`for the anode chamber ([0001], [0003], fig. 1). Yagi teaches oxygen as an oxidizing gas
`
`for the cathode chamber ([0001], [0004], fig. 1). The way a fuel cell functions is that
`
`hydrogen is fed to the anode side, so this claim is met.
`
`Regarding claims 21 and 23, Yagi teaches the liquid path is connected to the
`
`13.4 : fltfifimwr
`
` cathode as shown:
`
`Regarding claim 27, as modified, the addition of the water purifier (filter) of Tange
`
`on the liquid path of Yagi forms a second liquid path that is not provided with a tank
`
`because it is a second liquid path that is isolated between the filter and the solar
`
`hydrogen producing unit.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`4.
`
`Claims 4-5 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Yagi (JP 2004-259480 A), Tange (US 2010/0330443 A1), and Schmittman (US
`
`2002/0090868), as applied to claim 1, in view of Anderson (US 2005/0109393 A1).
`
`Regarding claims 4-5, Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman, teach above. However,
`
`Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman are silent about a water level sensor and a control unit as
`
`well as the set value is set to a water level at which an electrode unit of the solar
`
`hydrogen producing unit is not exposed from an electrolyte.
`
`Anderson teaches a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell, a solar powered
`
`electrolysis unit, and a liquid distribution system (abstract, fig. 1). This makes Anderson
`
`analogous art. The electrolysis unit is connected with the source of water, receives
`
`water from the source of water, provides the electrolysis of the water, and produces
`
`hydrogen gas and oxygen gas ([0009]). The solar panel is connected with the
`
`electrolysis unit, receives solar rays, and provides electrical energy to the electrolysis
`
`unit ([0009]). The byproduct of the electrolysis unit is hydrogen which is provided to the
`
`fuel cell (abstract, [0007]). The electrolysis unit comprises of a water level sensor
`
`([0010]). The examiner is substituting the solar powered electrolysis unit from Anderson
`
`for the solar powered electrolyzer of Yagi. Anderson further teaches a controller
`
`([0009]). The electrolysis chamber 31 may be filled with water from the water tank 90 or
`
`any other source of water via the water fill inlet 36 and the water fill valve 361 up to a
`
`preset level. The water level in the electrolysis chamber may be monitored and
`
`controlled by the system controller 70 ([0026]). Thus, the set value is set to a water
`
`level at which an electrode unit of the solar hydrogen producing unit is not exposed from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`an electrolyte. The water level sensor detects the water level of the electrolysis unit
`
`([0026]). The sensor detects when the electrolysis unit is filled ([0026]). Thus,
`
`Anderson teaches a water level sensor in order to recirculate the water in the system
`
`and avoid the water to buildup in the system. Anderson teaches a controller taken as
`
`the control unit of the claims. Since a controller of Anderson is connected to all of the
`
`components of the system (fig. 1), the functions described above are capable of being
`
`performed. The water level sensor sends a signal to a control unit when the water level
`
`decreases to a set value set in advance, causes the water supply unit to supply a
`
`predetermined amount of conducting water to the solar hydrogen producing unit upon
`
`receiving the signal.
`
`It would be obvious to substitute the water supply unit from Anderson in Yagi,
`
`because Anderson teaches material in system in similar way and this is a simple
`
`substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable
`
`results.
`
`Further, it would be obvious to combine the controller from Anderson in Yagi,
`
`because Anderson teaches material in system in similar way and this is a simple
`
`combination of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable
`
`results.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 6-7 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Yagi (JP 2004-259480 A), Tange (US 2010/0330443 A1), Schmittman (US
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`2002/0090868), and Anderson (US 2005/0109393 A1), as applied to claim 4, in view of
`
`Tamura (US 20090291337 A1).
`
`Regarding claims 6-7, Yagi, Tange, Schmittman, and Anderson teach as stated
`
`above. However, Yagi, Tange, Schmittman, and Anderson are silent about the water
`
`level sensor located on the circulation path.
`
`Tamura teaches a hydrogen generator, a fuel cell, a water purifier, and a
`
`circulation path for the water used in the system (abstract, fig. 1). The hydrogen
`
`produced from the hydrogen generator is used in the fuel cell (fig. 1, [0010]-[0019]).
`
`This makes Tamura analogous art. Tamura teaches the use of water level sensors 11
`
`and 12 that are located on the circulation path of the water in the fuel cell system (figs. 3
`
`and 4, [0027]-[0029]).
`
`It would be obvious to combine the location of the water level sensor from
`
`Tamura in Yagi, because Tamura teaches material in system in similar way and this is a
`
`simple combination of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve
`
`predictable results.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 18-19 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Schmittman (US 2002/0090868) and Yokoyama (US 2009/0011299), as applied to
`
`claim 17, in view of Hado (WO 2010146849 A1 with US 20110174610 A1 as an English
`
`equivalent).
`
`Regarding claims 18-19, Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman, teach as stated above.
`
`However, Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman, are silent about the electrode unit comprises a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`photocatalytic semiconductor electrode and a counter electrode, and the photocatalytic
`
`semiconductor electrode comprises a conductive substrate and a photocatalytic
`
`semiconductor layer formed on the surface of the conductive substrate.
`
`Hado teaches a photoelectrochemical cell (1) for a fuel cell ([0057]) is a
`
`photoelectrochemical cell for decomposing water by irradiation with light so as to
`
`produce hydrogen. This photoelectrochemical cell (1) includes: a conductive substrate;
`
`a first electrode (optical semiconductor electrode (3)) including an optical semiconductor
`
`and disposed on a first main surface of the conductive substrate; a second electrode
`
`(counter electrode (4)) disposed in a region on the first main surface of the conductive
`
`substrate where the first electrode is not disposed; an electrolyte containing water and
`
`disposed in contact with a surface of the first electrode and a surface of the second
`
`electrode; a rib (5) formed to separate a space above the surface of the second
`
`electrode from a space above the surface of the first electrode and to extend along a
`
`flow direction of a gas produced on the surface of the second electrode, the rib being
`
`formed of a material that allows ions to pass therethrough and prevents a gas from
`
`passing therethrough; and a container (2) containing the conductive substrate, the first
`
`electrode (cathode), the second electrode (anode), the electrolyte, and the rib
`
`(abstract).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to have a fuel cell system comprising a solar hydrogen producing unit
`
`comprises a housing and an electrode unit, the electrode unit comprises a
`
`photocatalytic semiconductor electrode and a counter electrode, and the photocatalytic
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`semiconductor electrode comprises a conductive substrate and a photocatalytic
`
`semiconductor layer formed on the surface of the conductive substrate by Yagi, Tange,
`
`and Schmittman, because Hado teaches a solar hydrogen producing unit comprises a
`
`housing and an electrode unit, the electrode unit comprises a photocatalytic
`
`semiconductor electrode and a counter electrode, and the photocatalytic semiconductor
`
`electrode comprises a conductive substrate and a photocatalytic semiconductor layer
`
`formed on the surface of the conductive substrate in order provide a
`
`photoelectrochemical cell that allows separate collection of produced hydrogen and
`
`oxygen, and prevents the produced gas from covering the electrode surface so as to
`
`improve the hydrogen production efficiency.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 22, 24, 25, and 26, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Yagi (JP 2004-259480 A), Tange (US 2010/0330443 A1), and
`
`Schmittman (US 2002/0090868), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yokoyama (US
`
`2009/0011299).
`
`Regarding claims 22, 24, 25, and 26, Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman, teach
`
`above. However, Yagi, Tange, and Schmittman are silent about pump on the first liquid
`
`path.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Yokoyama teaches a fuel cell system as shown:
`
`Fig.1
`
`“if
`3
`{1
`i
`1
`‘.uwupau_c..._.._,£»...._w““
`l
`.I
`.
`---------
`.9.
`r
`:
`
`j
`
`Yokoyama teaches a control unit 40, a water purifier 71 , a fuel cell 2, and a water
`
`distribution system 75, PU3, 8V5 (fig. 1). As can be seen, the water exits the fuel cell
`
`stack 2 and recirculates back in the system through the water purifier (fig. 1).
`
`Yokoyama teaches a control unit 40, a water purifier 71, a fuel cell 2, a water level
`
`sensor 14, and a water distribution system 75, PU3, 8V5 (fig. 1, [0048]). Thus
`
`Yokoyama is analogous art. Yokoyama teaches a pump PU3 to flow the water through
`
`the system for recycling ([0046] and fig. 1). Since the pump is utilized to flow the water
`
`through the system, one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`recognized to move the pump from one side of the water purifying unit to the other side,
`
`or the inlet side which is taken as the first liquid path. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`modify the apparatus of Yokoyama to have a pump on the first liquid path, as such
`
`modification would involve a mere change in configuration.
`
`It has been held that a
`
`change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence
`
`that a particular configuration is significant.
`
`In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47
`
`(CCPA 1966). Regarding the second liquid path being provided with a second pump,
`
`as combined, Yagi and Tange teach a first and second fluid path by placing the purifier
`
`of Tange on the fluid path of Yagi (see above). The addition of a second pump for use
`
`to flow the water through the system would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Mere duplication of parts has no
`
`patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
`
`In re Harza,
`
`124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of
`
`the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis
`
`Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
`
`Thus, the limitation of the second liquid path being provided with a second pump
`
`is satisfied because, as modified, it would have been obvious to add a second pump to
`
`the second liquid path once the filter of Tange is placed on the lilquid path of Yagi. Two
`
`liquid paths are present and the addition of a second pump on the second liquid path is
`
`a mere duplication of parts.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`It would be obvious to combine the pump from Yokoyama in Yagi, because
`
`Yokoyama teaches material in system in similar way and this is a simple combination of
`
`one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/31/2017, with respect
`
`to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-27 under 35 USC 103a have been fully considered
`
`and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon
`
`further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yagi (JP 2004-
`
`259480 A) in view of Tange (US 2010/0330443 A1) and Schmittman (US
`
`2002/0090868).
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 05/31/2017 have been fully considered. The applicant
`
`argues that the references of Schmittman and Yokoyama, presented in the office action
`
`dated 02/09/2017 do not teach the claimed invention. Specifically, the applicant argues
`
`the reference of Yokoyama cannot be combined with Schmittman because the first and
`
`second fluid path are not taught.
`
`The references of Yagi and Tange are added to better teach the invention. As
`
`seen above, the structure of Yagi is similar to the instant invention. The modification of
`
`Yagi to add the water purifier of Tange on the fluid path of Yagi teaches the instant
`
`claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/984,413
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to RASHID ALAM whose telephone number is (571 )270-
`
`3959. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. 7:30 am-5:00 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, Mark Huff can be reached on 571 -272-1 385. 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
`
`/JONATHAN JELSMA/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`/RASHID ALAM/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`