QE2011 paper B answer

1. (1) Response to Written Opinion
We 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.

2. 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).

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.

4. 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.

5. (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

6. (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