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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 21, 24 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) and further in view of Nicholas (US 2016/0368794).
Regarding claim 1, Thorn (US 2016/0089463) teaches –
A system for disinfecting water carrying pipes (Title, Abstract), the system comprising:
a conduit (Fig. 1 convey line 100) designed to carry water (the convey line is well capable of conveying a fluid including water as there is no structural difference between a fluid carrying pipe and a water carrying one and the difference is one of an intended use, MPEP 2114, II also water vapor is present in the pipes per claim 20), the conduit having an inlet, an outlet, and an interior volume in fluid communication with the inlet and outlet (fig. 1 line 100; paragraph [0018]) and where the interior volume contains a fluid consisting essentially of a mixture of gaseous ozone and air (pars. 18-10 disclose only air and ozone) and wherein the interior volume of the conduit is substantially free of liquid (pars. 2 and 32 discloses the line 100 is filled with gas and there is no positive recitation of any liquid being present in the line at the time of disinfection); and
an ozone generation apparatus for producing gaseous ozone (delivery module 12), wherein the ozone generation apparatus is in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 1 shows this), the ozone generation device consisting essentially of an oxygen concentrator (par. 30 discloses the generator 20 concentrates oxygen to form ozone, necessitating some concentration means) and air blower system (compressed air source 14), and one or more of an ozone analyzer (ozone analyzer 24), motor, compressor, cooling coil, and sieve bed (only one of the limitations following the phrase one or more of is required and therefore the limitation of the claim is met), and
a controller in communication with the ozone generation apparatus, the controller designed to adjust a rate of ozone production by the ozone generation apparatus (pars. 18 and 38 discloses that the ozone generation module is controlled by a controller in order to increase or decrease the amount of ozone being released),
wherein the controller controls the air blower system to dilute the gaseous ozone to form a diluted mixture of ozone gas and air (par. 18 the compressed air source is controlled at least in part by air flow control system 16 to deliver air to mix with the ozone which forms an air/ozone mixture, thereby diluting the gaseous ozone).
Thorn appears to be silent with regards to the particular pressure, specifically an ozone reaction chamber, and a variable frequency drive.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a pressure: Conners (US 6,086,833) teaches that ozone decomposition increases with increasing pressure (Column 1 lines 50-57), therefore establishing pressure as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Thorn such that the pressure of the mixture within the conduit is between 0.1-15 psig to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as an ordinary artisan would desire to optimize the result-effective variable that is pressure to achieve an ozone mixture that does not decompose prematurely to allow for a good disinfection, and the motivation to optimize a result-effective variable is prime facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) for more details.
Regarding the limitation directed towards the ozone generation apparatus including one or more ozone reaction chambers and a controller in communication with the ozone generation apparatus: Weber (US 2009/0185959) discloses an ozone generation system (par. 3, 8) including one or more ozone reaction chambers (par. 29, fig. 1 ozone-generating cell 122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Thorn such that the device includes an ozone reaction chamber as disclosed by Weber to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to produce ozone according to a known-effective means as Thorn is silent to the specific ozone generation means (par. 30 only discloses a “conventional system”) and an ordinary artisan would look to the prior art for appropriate designs to successfully implement the device of Thorn. The combination of familiar prior art elements, like known ozone generation means and ozone disinfecting systems, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation directed towards a variable frequency drive: Nicholas (US 2016/0368794) discloses a fluid treatment apparatus (abstract, Fig. 1) wherein the flow of the fluid is controlled via a variable frequency drive pump (par. 45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Thorn such that the air blower system includes a variable frequency drive for controlling the flow of fluid out of the blower system to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully control the flow of air as desired by Thorn according to known-effective means in the art for real-time fluid flow control to arrive at an improved disinfecting system. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known pump control designs and systems in need of flow control at a pumping unit, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thorn further teaches an ozone destruction apparatus in communication with the outlet (Fig. 1 ozone destruction module 18).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thorn further teaches the air blower system includes an air blower configured to move fluid from the interior volume of the outlet (the ozone is transported through the pipe and thus necessitates or at least makes obvious this function; furthermore, air source 14 reads on the limitation of a blower as it can include a pump, par. 35).
Regarding claim 21 modified Thorn teaches the fluid consists of gaseous ozone and air (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Thorn discloses the interior volume of the conduit is substantially free of liquid, the liquid including water (only gas is present in the conduit, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and in par. 19 of Thorn).
Regarding claim 29, modified Thorn further teaches the air blower system is designed to purge the conduit of liquid before ozone is introduced to the conduit by blowing air into the conduit (the blower 14 is designed to blow air into the conduit and is therefore designed in such a way that it could perform this function, MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 30, modified Thorn further teaches the air blower system is designed to blow the mixture of gaseous ozone and air out of the conduit and into the ozone destruction apparatus (the blower 14 is designed to blow the mixture through the conduit and is therefore designed in such a way that it could perform this function, MPEP 2114, II).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) in view of Nicholas (US 2016/0368794) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ludwig (US 6,960,321).
With regards to claim 4, modified Thorn teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Thorn appears to be silent with regards to riser pipes.
Ludwig (US 6,960,321) teaches a sterilizations system using sterile gas (Abstract) wherein the system comprises riser pipes at the inlet and outlet of the conduit (Fig. 3 shows many risers, Column 6 lines 17-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ozone disinfection system taught by modified into the pipe system taught by Ludwig or alternatively include riser pipes in the system taught by Thorn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize a conventional pipe system in need of sterilization. All of the claimed features are taught by the prior art and an ordinary artisan could have combined them with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) in view of Nicholas (US 2016/0368794) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Schulz (US 2005/0249631).
With regards to claim 6, modified Thorn teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Modified Thorn appear to be silent with regards to a liquid bypass system.
Schulz (US 2005/0249631) teaches the ozone destruction apparatus further comprises a liquid bypass system (Fig. 2 isolation valve 22; Paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Thorn such that the system includes a fluid bypass system reading on a liquid bypass system as taught by Schulz to arrive at the claimed invention, or alternatively to incorporate the ozone disinfection system taught by modified Thorn into the pipe system taught by Schulz. One would have been motivated to do so in order control the flow of the sanitizing vector to endpoints as desired, and to sanitize a conventional pipe system in need of sanitization as desired to arrive at an improved sanitizing device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including bypass lines and conduits, according to known means for the same purpose together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
With regards to claim 7, Thorn in view of Conners teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Thorn in view of Conners appear to be silent with regards to a relief valve.
Schulz further teaches a relief valve is positioned between the outlet and the ozone destruction apparatus (Fig. 2 isolation valve 28; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Thorn such that the system includes a relief valve designed to restrict fluid flow from the outlet into the ozone destruction apparatus as taught by Schulz to arrive at the claimed invention, or alternatively to incorporate the ozone disinfection system taught by modified Thorn into the pipe system taught by Schulz. One would have been motivated to do so in order control the flow of the sanitizing vector to endpoints as desired, and to sanitize a conventional pipe system in need of sanitization as desired to arrive at an improved sanitizing device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including bypass lines and relief valves, according to known means for the same purpose together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 10-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Galbraith (US 2013/0216627) and in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) in view of Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488).
With regards to claim 10, Thorn (US 2016/0089463) teaches –
A system for disinfecting water-carrying pipes (Title, Abstract, there is no structural difference between water-carrying pipes and the convey line 100 of Thorn and the only distinction is that of an intended use, MPEP 2114, II), the system comprising:
a conduit (Fig. 1 convey line 100) designed to carry water (the convey line 100 has water vapor injected therein, see claim 20), the conduit having an inlet, an outlet, and an interior volume in fluid communication with the inlet and outlet (fig. 1 line 100; paragraph [0018]); the interior volume containing a fluid consisting essentially of gaseous ozone and air (compressed air source 14 and ozone generator 20 are the only sources of fluid in the system); and
an ozone generation apparatus provided in a first device for producing gaseous ozone (ozone generator 20), wherein the ozone generation apparatus is in fluid communication with the inlet (Fig. 1); and
an ozone destruction apparatus provided in the form of a second device in communication with the outlet (Fig. 1 ozone destroyer 18 is separate than ozone generation module 12). Thorn appears to be silent with regards to the pressure of the ozone and a sieve bed comprising a material which absorbs water vapor, and
a shutoff valve in fluid communication with the outlet of the conduit and the ozone destruction apparatus (air flow control system 16 includes valves, par. 36, and the system 16 is in fluid communication with the outlet of the conduit 100 - the valves being reasonably capable of preventing flow as claimed inherently or at least obviously), and a controller (par. 18, 32 disclose a controller for controlling ozone output). Thorn appears to be silent with regards towards pressure the particular, a sieve bed, the portability of the apparatuses, and a controller configured to adjust a rate of ozone production and control the shutoff valve.
Regarding the limitation directed towards pressure: Conners teaches that ozone decomposition increases with increasing pressure (Column 1 lines 50-57), therefore establishing pressure as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Thorn such that the pressure of the mixture within the conduit is between 0.1-15 psig to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as an ordinary artisan would desire to optimize the result-effective variable that is pressure to achieve an ozone mixture that does not decompose prematurely to allow for a good disinfection, and the motivation to optimize a result-effective variable is prime facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) for more details.
Further regarding the limitation directed towards a sieve bed with a material absorbing water vapor: Galbraith (US 2013/0216627) teaches an oxygen concentrator (abstract) that comprises a sieve bed with a material that absorbs moisture (Figs. 6a-7b; sieve beds portrayed with fibrous pad 139 coalesces moisture to protect from moisture; Paragraph [0236]). Weber (US 2009/0185959) teaches that excessive water content in the oxygen used for ozone production can lower ozone output (Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Thorn in view of Conners such that there is a sieve bed comprising a material which absorbs water included in the oxygen concentrator of the ozone generator 20 (Paragraph [0030]) taught by Thorn to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase and improve the ozone output to arrive at a more efficient and effective device.
Further regarding the limitation that the first and second modules are portable: modifying a device that is otherwise taught by the prior art to be portable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over the prior art device unless there are new or unexpected results. There are no new or unexpected results anticipated from this modification and therefore the modification is merely obvious in view of modified Thorn. MPEP 2144.04(V)(A).
Further regarding the limitation that a controller in electrical communication with the ozone generation apparatus is configured to adjust a rate of ozone production and control the shutoff valve after a predetermined property is achieved: Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488) teaches an ozone disinfection device (abstract) and that ozone concentration and exposure time of the ozone to the medium to be treated dictate the effectiveness of the disinfection (par. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Thorn such that the controller adjusts a rate of ozone production and the flow through the system via the shut-off valve according to a specified concentration of ozone, an ozone exposure time, and a calculated product of ozone and ozone exposure time to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to best treat the fluid with ozone according to effective concentrations of ozone and exposure times as suggested by Denkewicz to arrive at an improved ozone disinfecting system.
With regards to claim 11, Thorn further teaches an ozone analyzer (Fig. 1 ozone analyzer 24). With regards to claim 12, Thorn further teaches the ozone analyzer is located on the ozone generation apparatus (Fig. 1 shows this).
Regarding claim 22, modified Thorn further teaches the fluid consists of the mixture of gaseous ozone and air (Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Galbraith (US 2013/0216627) and further in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) in view of Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Andersen (US 2018/0008734).
With regards to claim 14, modified Thorn teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Modified Thorn appears to be silent with regards to the ozone destruction apparatus comprising a catalyst.
Andersen (US 2018/0008734) teaches an ozone destroyer comprising a catalyst that includes manganese dioxide (Paragraph [0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the manganese dioxide catalyst for destroying ozone in the ozone destroyer taught by modified Thorn to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known-effective means for destroying ozone to successfully implement the device of Thorn, and furthermore as the combination of familiar prior art elements, including ozone-destruction means, according to known methods to achieve the predictable result of a successful disinfection system is prime facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) and further in view of Nicholas (US 2016/0368794) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Galbraith (US 2013/0216627).
Regarding claim 23, Thorn is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a sieve bed.
Galbraith (US 2013/0216627) teaches an oxygen concentrator (abstract) that comprises a sieve bed with a material that absorbs moisture (Figs. 6a-7b; sieve beds portrayed with fibrous pad 139 coalesces moisture to protect from moisture; Paragraph [0236]). Weber (US 2009/0185959) teaches that excessive water content in the oxygen used for ozone production can lower ozone output (Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Thorn in view of Conners such that there is a sieve bed comprising a material which absorbs water included in the oxygen concentrator of the ozone generator 20 (Paragraph [0030]) taught by Thorn to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase and improve the ozone output to arrive at a more efficient and effective device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) and further in view of Nicholas (US 2016/0368794) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488).
Regarding claim 25, modified Thorn is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and further teaches the concentration is measured in relation to a time maintained at the concentration (par. 15) in order to control the production and delivery of ozone (par. 38), but appears to be silent with regards to a calculated CT value.
Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488) discloses an ozone disinfection system where it is taught that the benefit expected from ozone is correlated to the CT value (par. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Thorn such that a CT value is calculated in the adjusting of the rate of ozone production as taught by Denkewicz to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better control the ozone production to destroy target pathogens as desired to arrive at an improved ozone disinfection system.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) and further in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) as in view of Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488).
Regarding claim 26, Thorn discloses –
An ozone system for disinfecting water-carrying pipes (Title, Abstract, there is no structural difference between water-carrying pipes and the convey line 100 of Thorn and the only distinction is that of an intended use, MPEP 2114, II), the system comprising:
the conduit having an inlet, an outlet, and an interior volume in fluid communication with the inlet and outlet (fig. 1 line 100; paragraph [0018]) and wherein the interior volume of the conduit is substantially free of water and contains a fluid consisting essentially of a mixture of gaseous ozone and air (pars. 2 and 32 discloses the line 100 is filled with gas and there is no positive recitation of any liquid being present in the line at the time of disinfection and only ozone and air are present).
a first apparatus, the first mobile apparatus including an ozone generation system designed to produce gaseous ozone (fig. 1 ozone generation module 12), wherein the ozone generation system is in fluid communication with the inlet (fig. 1 shows this), the ozone generation system including an ozone concentrator (par. 30 discloses the ozone generator concentrates oxygen to make ozone), an ozone analyzer (ozone analyzer 24), an air blower system (par. 35 discloses a blower), a flow meter (ozone flow meter 22),
a second apparatus, the second mobile apparatus including an ozone destruction system in fluid communication with the outlet (ozone destruction apparatus 18);
a shutoff valve in fluid communication with the outlet of the conduit and the ozone destruction system (air flow control system 16 includes valves, par. 36, and the system 16 is in fluid communication with the outlet of the conduit 100 - the valves being reasonably capable of preventing flow as claimed inherently or at least obviously); and
a controller in communication with the ozone generation system, the controller designed to adjust a rate of ozone production by the ozone generation system (par. 18 discloses that the ozone generation module is controlled by a controller in order to increase or decrease the amount of ozone being released). Thorn appears to be silent with regards to the particular pressure, the first and second apparatuses being mobile, the ozone generation system including a reaction chamber and at least one filter, and the controller adjusting a rate of ozone production and a blowing rate of the air blower system based on a CT value.
Regarding the limitation directed towards the pressure: Conners (US 6,086,833) teaches that ozone decomposition increases with increasing pressure (Column 1 lines 50-57), therefore establishing pressure as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Thorn such that the pressure of the mixture within the conduit is between 2-15 psig to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as an ordinary artisan would desire to optimize the result-effective variable that is pressure to achieve an ozone mixture that does not decompose prematurely to allow for a good disinfection, and the motivation to optimize a result-effective variable is prime facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) for more details.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a reaction chamber and at least one filter: Weber (US 2009/0185959) discloses an ozone system including an ozone generation system including at least one filter (par. 30 discloses an air filter present at an intake 116 of the ozone generator 102) and including one or more ozone reaction chambers (par. 29, fig. 1 ozone-generating cell 122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Thorn such that the ozone generation system includes at least one filter and a reaction chamber as taught by Weber to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent particles, debris, or other contaminants from being introduced to the system and to form ozone according to a known and conventional manner as desired by Thorn in order to arrive at a more effective and sanitary disinfecting system.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a CT value: Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488) teaches an ozone disinfection device (abstract) and that ozone concentration and exposure time of the ozone to the medium to be treated, and a product of which is a CT value, dictate the effectiveness of the disinfection (par. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Thorn such that the controller adjusts a rate of ozone production and the flow through the system via the blowing rate of the air blower according to a specified concentration of ozone, an ozone exposure time, and a calculated product of ozone and ozone exposure time which is CT value to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to best treat the fluid with ozone according to effective concentrations of ozone and exposure times as suggested by Denkewicz to arrive at an improved ozone disinfecting system.
Regarding claim 27, modified Thorn further discloses the system operating without a pressurized water source (the system 10 only requires gas and does not introduce at any point pressurized water).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn (US 2016/0089463) in view of Conners (US 6,086,833) and further in view of Weber (US 2009/0185959) as in view of Denkewicz (US 2007/0248488) as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Schulz (US 2005/0249631).
Regarding claim 28, modified Thorn appears to be silent with regards to a relief valve positioned between the outlet and the ozone destruction apparatus and a liquid bypass system.
Schulz (US 2005/0249631) teaches the ozone destruction apparatus further comprises a liquid bypass system (Fig. 2 isolation valve 22; Paragraph [0027]), and a relief valve is positioned between the outlet and the ozone destruction apparatus (Fig. 2 isolation valve 28; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Thorn such that the system includes a relief valve designed to restrict fluid flow from the outlet into the ozone destruction apparatus and a fluid bypass system reading on a liquid bypass system as taught by Schulz to arrive at the claimed invention, or alternatively to incorporate the ozone disinfection system taught by Thorn in view of Conners into the pipe system taught by Schulz. One would have been motivated to do so in order control the flow of the sanitizing vector to endpoints as desired, and to sanitize a conventional pipe system in need of sanitization as desired to arrive at an improved sanitizing device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including bypass lines and relief valves, according to known means for the same purpose together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 112(a) rejections are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards claim 1 are not persuasive. Applicant argues Thorn fails to teach a variable frequency drive system, however the newly cited Nicholas is relied upon for teaching this limitation as necessitated by amendment. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards claim 10 are not persuasive. Applicant argues Thorn does not teach a shut-off valve in fluid communication with the outlet of the conduit and the ozone destruction apparatus, which is not persuasive. Thorn teaches a plurality of valves associated with the air source, and the air source is in communication with the conduit and the ozone destructor (see fig. 1). Therefore, the valves taught to be associated with the air source are in fluid communication with the conduit, the outlet of the conduit, and the ozone destruction device as the valves allow or disallow air to flow therethrough. Applicant argues that the valves are not fluidly coupled with the apparatus where the ozone is destroyed, which is an inaccurate construction of the term “fluidly coupled to”, because the same fluid that passes through the valves associated with the air source would then also in a continuous fashion flow though the conduit, the outlet of the conduit, and the ozone destruction device.
Applicant’s further remarks directed towards claim 10 arguing Thorn does not teach a controller configured to perform the claimed functions are further not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed towards Schulz are moot, as Schulz is not referenced anywhere in the rejection of claim 10. Denkewicz is relied upon for teaching the contested limitation, and Applicant presents no specific arguments attack the reference or the combination of the references including Denkewicz. Claim 10 remains rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards claim 26 are not persuasive. Applicant argues Thorn fails to teach an air blower system and a shut-off valve, which are similarly not persuasive for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Applicant’s arguments directed towards Schulz are not persuasive as Schulz is not referenced anywhere in the rejection of claim 26. Denkewicz is relied upon for teaching the contested limitation, and Applicant presents no specific arguments attack the reference or the combination of the references including Denkewicz. Claim 26 remains rejected.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights