(1) Response to Written OpinionWe refer to Written Opinion for Singapore Patent Application number 200500001-1.

Lack of Unity

In Written Opinion, the examiner pointed out that each of claims 1-3 is directed to a different invention. Accordingly, the applicant deleted original claims 1 and 2. Since there is only one inventive concept covered by one claim, the applicant believes unity of invention is given.

Support for original claim 3 (new claim 1)

In Written Opinion, the examiner pointed out that original claim 3 is not supported by the description. Accordingly, the applicant amended original claim 3.

“A water dispenser” has been amended to “A tap unit for a water dispenser”. Also, “a resilient element” has been added to new claim 1. Support for the “resilient element” can be found in page 5 line 18-19 of the description. “The lever unit being biased into the contracted state” has been amended to “the lever unit being biased into the expanded state”. Support for “the lever unit being biased into the expanded state” can be found in page 2, line 29-30 of description.

In light of the above, new claim 1 is supported by the description. Also, applicant believes that no additional matter is disclosed in the amendment.

Novelty

D1 discloses a single tap, which is movable between a closed configuration and two open configurations, and in the each open configuration transmits water from a different respective one of the conduits. More specifically, D1 discloses a single tap with L-shaped handle, which has a horizontal arm and vertical leg.

D1 does not disclose the feature “a lever unit having a resilient element” in new claim 1. Thus neither “expanded states” nor “contracted states” is disclosed in D1. Therefore new claim 1 is novel over D1.

Inventiveness

According to D1, rather than providing a separate tap for each of the conduits, Tea Glow propose a single tap, which is movable between a closed configuration and two open configurations, and in the each open configuration transmits water from a different respective one of the conduits.

Also, in D1, to avoid unintentional dispensing, the tap unit 7 is provided with a mechanism which requires that a second, longitudinal action at the same time as the rotational motion of the arm 42, in order that water is dispensed. For example, spout 9 may be provided with a valve controlled by a button. The value is biased into a closed formation in which water cannot pass through the spout 9. The valve is open when, and only when, the button is pressed. Thus, to dispense water by displacing the user arm 42 with one hand, while pressing the button with the other.

On the other hands, present invention discloses a tap unit which enable user to perform single-handedly while holding a cup with his or her other hand, but it is hard for a child to perform the action, and thus there is little risk of the child causing water to leak.

“A lever unit having a resilient element” in claim 1 of present application enables user to perform single-handedly. None of prior arts discloses a lever unit having a resilient element, furthermore, a tap unit which enable user to perform single-handedly. Therefore person skilled in the art who studies D1 cannot reach the invention described in claim 1 of present application.

In light of the above discussion, new claim 1 is inventive over D1.

(2) Cover letter to IPOS

Dear Sirs,

Applicant wishes to amend claims of this application to meet requirement in s30(3) of Singapore Patents Act.

s30(3)(a)The examination report received by the Registrar disclose unresolved objection on the ground that the claims in the application do not relate to one invention or to a group of inventions which are so linked as to form a single inventive concept.

However, claims 1 and 2 are deleted by the enclosing amendment and the objection has been resolved.

s30(3)(b)Each claim in the application at the time the prescribed documents for the grant of the patent were filed is related to at least one claim in the application at the time the report was issued which has been examined and which is referred to in the report.

Since amendment for this application is just for clarification and correction of an error, new claim 1 is related to claim 3 at the time of the report was issued.

In light of the above discussion, it is clear that this application meets requirements in s30(3).

Amendment for (1)

1. A water dispenser having:a dispenser unit for receiving a water bottle, the dispenser unit having a conduit for

receiving water from the water bottle;a tap unit, the tap unit having an open configuration in which the tap unit permits water to

flow from the conduit to a spout of the tap unit, and a closed configuration in which the tap unit does not permit water to flow from the conduit to the spout,

the tap unit further comprising a spring for biasing the tap unit to the closed configuration.

2. A water dispenser having:a dispenser unit for receiving a water bottle, the dispenser unit having a conduit for

receiving water from the water bottle and transmitting it to two output portions, and a heater device and a cooler device proximate the respective output portions;

for each output portion a respective tap unit for controlling the flow of water through the respective output portion.

3. A water dispenser having:a dispenser unit for receiving a water bottle, the dispenser unit having a conduit for receiving water from the water bottle;

1. A tap unit for a water dispenser:

wherein the tap unit is controllable by a lever unit having a resilient element, the lever unit having an expanded state in which it can control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, and a contracted state in which the lever unit is not operative to control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, the lever unit being biased into the expanded state.

Amendment for (2)

1. A water dispenser having: a dispenser unit for receiving a water bottle, the dispenser unit having a conduit for receiving water from the water bottle; a tap unit controllable by a lever unit having a resilient unit, the lever unit having an expanded state in which it can control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, and a contracted state in which the lever unit is not operative to control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, the lever unit being biased into the contracted expanded state.

(1) Dear William Tan,

Thank you for your letter.As requested, I prepared necessary amendment and argument to respond to Written Opinion.

Lack of Unity of invention

The examiner noted that Claims 1-3 do not contain a common feature which is novel with regard to D1, and thus each is directed to a different invention. Unity is lacking, and there are three inventive concepts respectively covered by the three claims.

To address this objection, it will be advisable to delete 2 claims and concentrate on 1 claim. Since I understand the third embodiment is the most important for you, claims 1 and 2 are deleted and claim 3 is amended to new claim 1.

Novelty and Inventive Step

The examiner noted that all of claims 1-3 are lacking in novelty over reference D1.

To address this objection, it wil be advisable to limit the scope of protection. As you mentioned, tap units of Fig. 11 seems to be novel and inventive. Also, I noted your comments that, conceivably there could be a commercial market for the inventive tap units of Fig. 11 on their own, i.e. not sold in combination with a dispensing unit. Therefore I amended claim 3 to new claim 1 as follows:

A tap unit for a water dispenser:

wherein the tap unit is controllable by a lever unit having a resilient element, the lever unit having an expanded state in which it can control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, and a contracted state in which the lever unit is not operative to control the tap unit to dispense water from the water bottle, the lever unit being biased into the expanded state.

A water dispenser has been amended to a tap unit. Since a resilient element which is described in Fig. 11 has novelty and inventive steps over D1, I included the part in the new claims.

Support by the description

The examiner noted that claim 3 is not supported by the description. Since the examiner does not specify the part which is not supported by the description, I assume that the part “the lever unit being biased into the contracted state” is not supported by the description.

To address this objection, it will be advisable to correct the part to “the lever unit being biased into the expanded state”.

I believe the amended claim maintains the widest allowable protection. I will proceed to file the amendment and argument. Upon receiving the examination report, I will report to you the same.

Best regards,

Yosuke Tanaka

(2) Dear William Tan,

Thank you for your letter.As requested, I prepared necessary amendment and proceeded to pay the grant fee. Before proceeding to grant, it is required to meet some requirements.

Lack of Unity of invention

Please note that the claims in the application is required to relate to one invention or to a group of inventions which are so linked as to form a single inventive concept. To meet this requirement, it will be advisable to delete 2 claims and concentrate on 1 claim. Since I understand the third embodiment is the most important for you, claims 1 and 2 are deleted and claim 3 is amended to new claim 1.

Novelty and Inventive Step

If the invention is not a patentable invention, it will be a ground of the patent being revoked. Therefore it will be advisable to amend claims to overcome objections for Novelty and Inventive step. Since a resilient element which is described in Fig. 11 has novelty and inventive steps over D1, I included the part in the new claims.

Support by the description

Please note that the claims in the application is required to be supported by the description. To meet this requirement, it will be advisable to correct the part to “the lever unit being biased into the expanded state”.

I believe the amended claim maintains the widest allowable protection. I will proceed to file the amendment and pay grant fee. Upon receiving Certificate of Grant, I will report to you the same.

Best regards,

Yosuke Tanaka