Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 16/960,034 filed on July 3, 2020. The application is a 371 of PCT/IL2019/050025 with priority to Israeli application IL-256745 filed January 4, 2018.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14, 16-19, and 26-31 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §112(b) rejection is maintained.
A §112(a) ground of rejection is applied.
The prior art rejections are overcome by Applicant’s amendment, and are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14-21, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, near the top of its second page, recites:
“wherein minimal interference between neighbor magnetic fields is set to take place a distance between 5 and 10 mm from center point of said magnetic field generated by said neighbor magnetic ring pair”.
However, this feature is not disclosed either explicitly or implicitly in the specification. Claim 1 is rejected under 112(a) because it contains new subject matter that lacks written description in the originally filed disclosure. Claims 4, 6-8, 11, 14, 16-19, and 26-31 are rejected by extension because they incorporate the subject matter of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14-21, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, Claim 1 recites:
"said magnetic field strength is selected for every pair of said magnetic rings so that it does not overlap or at least minimally interfere with a local magnetic field generated by a neighbor pair of magnetic rings"
Magnetic fields are continuous and differentiable over space; all magnetic fields overlap to some extent. Therefore, the meaning of this limitation depends on how much interference or interaction between the magnetic fields of neighboring magnetic rings is permissible within the scope of the phrase "does not overlap or at least minimally interfere". The breadth of "minimally interfere" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining how much the "minimal" interaction is, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
A similar 112(b) ground was presented in the previous Office Action (see O.A. of 22 April 2025). Applicant, with the apparent intent of clarifying the exact scope of the “does not ... at least minimally interfere ...” limitation, has amended claim 1 to rephrase the limitation and to further recite:
“wherein minimal interference between neighbor magnetic fields is set to take place a distance between 5 and 10 mm from center point of said magnetic field generated by said neighbor magnetic ring pair”.
However, these amendments do not overcome the 112(b) grounds of rejection because, as written, they make the indefinite subject matter less clear. The amended claim now says both that the magnetic field of one magnet “does not overlap or at least minimally interfere” that of its neighbor, and also requires that “minimal interference ... is set to take place” at a specified place; the claim apparently requires that minimal interference is both present and absent at the same time. Meanwhile the previous point of ambiguity has not been resolved because the claim still does not clearly define how much magnetic field overlap is permitted within the scope of “does not overlap or at least minimally interfere”. The 112(b) rejection is therefore maintained. Claims 4, 6-8, 11, 14, 16-19, and 26-31 are similarly indefinite because they incorporate the indefiniteness of claim 1.
One way the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections could both be overcome is by deleting, from claim 1, the text:
"said magnetic field strength is selected for every pair of said magnetic rings so that it does not overlap or at least minimally interfere with a local magnetic field generated by a neighbor pair of magnetic rings, wherein minimal interference between neighbor magnetic fields is set to take place a distance between 5 and 10 mm from center point of said magnetic field generated by said neighbor magnetic ring pair "
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14-21, and 26-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is distinguished over the pertinent prior art by the claimed feature of an internal device skeleton having holding elements, wherein the holding elements are rectangular bars, each rectangular bar extending inwardly from one of the longitudinal bars of the skeleton, the rectangular bars being leveled relative each other and separate from each other, wherein every rectangular bar comprises two cylindrical slots configured to mechanically hold one pair of said at least one pair of magnetic rings around said at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp.
The closest works of prior art are discussed below.
Kolstad (US 2016/0083275 A1) teaches a water purification system (para [0002]) comprising:
a chamber comprising an inlet and an outlet for flowing incoming and outgoing air into said chamber and out of said chamber and into a water-containing tank/vessel (chamber 136 comprises inlet 140 and outlet 164; see figures 2 and 5, and para [0035]);
at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp (figure 5-6, UV lamp 260; see para [0048]-[0051]);
at least one pair of magnetic rings (figure 5, first pair of magnetic rings 272, 276, and second pair of magnetic rings 280, 284; see para [0052]);
and a skeleton (figure 5-6 and para [0051], mounting pieces 264, 268) configured for occupying a center volume of said chamber from top to bottom around central longitudinal axis of said chamber (as shown in figures 5 and 6, the skeleton of mounts 264 and 268 occupies center volume around the central longitudinal axis of the chamber 236, at the top and bottom of the chamber), said skeleton comprising inner space for accommodating said at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp (para [0051], figures 5, 6, 8, mounts 264, 268 each comprise inner space for accommodating bulb 260) and at least one pair of holding elements for holding said at least one pair of magnetic rings horizontally around said at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp (para [0060]-[0061], figure 6, 8; each of the two mounts comprises recesses 332, 336 for holding a pair of magnetic rings around the lamp),
wherein an inner diameter of bases of said skeleton is smaller than an inner diameter of said housing sleeve (illustrated in figures 5-6, the base of skeleton piece and the base of skeleton piece 268 each fit within the housing sleeve 236), said housing sleeve is connected at opposite ends to top and bottom covers (para [0045]-[0048] and figure 5-6, housing sleeve 236 is connected to top cap 232 and bottom cap 240 to define the chamber), said top and bottom covers are provided each with respective central holes (para [0045]-[0050] and figure 5-6, top cover 232 comprises central hole 248, by which power cord 252 enters the device to connect to lamp 260, and also comprises off-center hole 140 which is the air inlet; bottom cover 240 comprises central hole 164 which is the air outlet), and wherein every pair of magnetic rings generates a local magnetic field upon placing said pairs of magnetic rings on said holding elements of said skeleton (para [0052], [0075]),
wherein said purification system comprises concentric configuration to minimally perturb the profile and distribution of said incoming and outgoing air (figures 5, 6, the chamber wall, skeleton pieces, and lamp are arranged concentrically. Note that apparatus claims are only limited by their structural features, and limitations drawn to the manner in which the apparatus is used or by the material that the apparatus works upon will only limit the claim to the extent that they limit the structure of the apparatus (see MPEP 2114, 2115). Since Kolstad discloses all of the claimed structural features, and it is possible to select operational parameters for Kolstad's device to minimize the amount of perturbation experienced by the air stream (e.g. low air flow rate), and the limitation does not impart an additional structural feature that is missing from Kolstad, Kolstad's concentric configuration therefore reads on the limitation of a "concentric configuration to minimally perturb the profile and distribution of said incoming and outgoing air"), said at least one pair of magnetic rings are positioned in parallel relative each other (figure 5, pair 272, 276 of magnetic rings are positioned parallel to one another, as is pair 280, 284) and configured to induce maximal concentric magnetic flux field on molecules of said flowing incoming and outgoing air (para [0052], magnets are configured to apply maximal magnetic field to the air flow, and are positioned at the inlet (incoming air) and the outlet (outgoing air)).
Kolstad teaches the magnetic rings generate magnetic field strength on the order of 104 gauss (para [0076], “magnets have a residual induction (Br) from about 12.9 to about 13.3 KGauss”) which falls within the claimed range of 10-3 to 106 gauss. As to the limitation wherein said magnetic field strength is sufficient to induce high magnetic flux in said chamber and excite/radicalize incoming ambient air, it is presumed that the magnetic field strength generated by Kolstad’s magnetic rings is sufficient to meet this limitation, because it is substantially the same as the magnetic field strength that is being claimed. Courts have held that when prior art recites a structure that is substantially identical to the claimed structure (in this case, magnetic rings arranged so as to generate a magnetic field having a strength in the claimed range), the properties of the claimed structure are presumed to be present in the prior art structure (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding the limitation wherein said magnetic field strength is selected for every pair of said magnetic rings so that, at a location between 5 to 10 mm from the center point of a neighboring pair of magnetic rings, it does not overlap or at least minimally interfere with a local magnetic field generated by the neighbor pair, Kolstad does not explicitly teach that their device possesses this feature, however, the claimed feature is presumed to be inherent to Kolstad's device, because Kolstad's magnetic field strength is in the claimed range of magnetic field strength, and magnetic ring pairs in Kolstad's device are separated by the same or greater distance as magnetic ring pairs in Applicant's exemplary device. Applicant's exemplary device places rare earth magnet ring pairs at top, bottom, and center positions of a device that is disclosed as being either 430 or 892 mm long, with no electromagnetic shielding between neighboring pairs (instant figures 5-6, pg 23-25); it is therefore understood that separating magnetic ring pairs by a distance of 20 cm is adequate to meet the reasonable scope of magnetic fields that "minimally interfere", as claimed. Kolstad teaches their two magnet ring pairs are positioned near two opposite ends of the chamber (figures 5-6) and the chamber is 66-102 cm long (para [0072]), therefore Kolstad's magnet ring pairs are separated by more than 20 cm and the extent of their interference with each other is within the scope of "minimally interfere". Additionally, Kolstad teaches that gas transiting through the device experiences the strongest part of the first magnetic field (of the first pair of rings) and the strongest part of the second magnetic field (second pair of rings) at distinct steps, rather than experiencing a single continuously-intense magnetic field (figure 7; para [0053]-[0058]), suggesting that the magnetic fields are effectively two separate regions of field which do not overlap or interfere with one another.
Kolstad does not teach that the internal skeleton comprises longitudinal bars extending from top to bottom bases of said skeleton around inner space for accommodating said at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp, wherein the holding elements extend inwardly from said longitudinal bars, and wherein said longitudinal bars, top and bottom bases, and holding elements form a single solid unit of said skeleton.
Lee (KR 10-2018-0055984 A; text citations are taken from a machine translation to English) is directed to an air purifier which operates by passing air through a cylindrical chamber in which it is exposed to UV radiation (para [0001]). Lee’s air purifier comprises a UV lamp extending vertically along the central axis of the cylinder (figure 2 and 4-6, lamp 140; para [0032]), several filter elements disposed surrounding the UV lamp (figure 2-3 and 5-6, filter elements 130; para [0026], “nanotube filter 130”), and a skeleton (figures 5-6 #160; para [0062], “fixing frame 160”) which comprises an inner space for accommodating the UV lamp, and holding elements for holding the lamp and filter elements in place (figure 3-7 and para [0060]-[0069], skeleton 160 comprises an inner space for accommodating the UV lamp 140, and an annular space 162 for accommodating the filters 130; inwardly extending tab 163 engages groove 142 in the lamp to hold it in place, and recess 164 engages the projecting lip 132 of the filter element to hold it in place). Lee’s skeleton comprises longitudinal bars extending from top to bottom bases of said skeleton around inner space for accommodating said at least one UV radiation bulb/lamp (Lee does not label the bars, but they are drawn in figure 6; see annotation below), and holding elements comprising cylindrical slots for holding the filter elements 130 around the UV lamp 140 (figure 6 and 7, holding elements comprising recesses 164 to engage lips 132 at the tops and bottoms of filters 130), said longitudinal bars, top and bottom bases, and holding elements forming a single solid unit of said skeleton (as shown in figure 6-7 and examiner’s annotation below). Lee teaches that the skeleton structure they disclose is advantageous for a device that purifies air with UV radiation, because the open framework of the skeleton holds the filter elements around the UV light as needed while blocking relatively little of the UV emanated from the lamp, so that the air is more [AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal bars)][AltContent: textbox (Top base)][AltContent: textbox (Bottom base)]thoroughly irradiated (para [0019], [0063]).
Figure 6 of Lee, with Examiner's annotation
However, the slots of Lee’s holding elements are not located on rectangular holding element bars that extend inwardly from the longitudinal bars of the skeleton, the rectangular bars being separate from each other and leveled relative to one another, with each rectangular bar comprising two cylindrical slots.
Kim et al (KR 10-465005 B1; text citations are taken from a machine translation into English) teaches a device for cleaning oil, comprising a dielectric tube which air is flowed through; a plasma discharge device within the dielectric tube which ionizes the air to produce reactive species such as ozone; permanent magnets encircling the tube to apply a magnetic field to the air that is being plasma treated; and a bubble diffusor for delivering the plasma treated air into the oil (see translated text pages 4-7). Kim further discloses a structure for holding the magnets in place around the dielectric tube, comprising a skeleton comprising longitudinal bars (figure 7 bars 64), and holding elements comprising rectangular bars projecting inwardly from the longitudinal bars, each rectangular bars comprising a cylindrical slot for receiving the annular magnet (figure 7, the holding elements that project inwardly from longitudinal bar 64 to hold magnets 56 (50) and 57 (50) in position; see Examiner’s annotation of Kim figure 7 below; see translated text pg 18-19 para [0056]-[0058])).
However, Kim’s holding elements differ from the claimed holding elements in that each of Kim’s holding elements comprises only one slot for holding one magnet ring. Kim, alone or in combination with the other pertinent art, does not suggest holding elements that each comprise a rectangular bar having two slots in it for holding a pair of magnet rings in place.
PNG
media_image3.png
1179
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Kim with examiner’s annotation
Claim 1 therefore defines subject matter that is not suggested in the relevant prior art. Claims 4, 6-8, 11, 14-21, and 26-31 define allowable subject matter by extension because they depend from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have introduced into claim 1 the limitation:
“wherein minimal interference between neighbor magnetic fields is set to take place a distance between 5 and 10 mm from center point of said magnetic field generated by said neighbor magnetic ring pair”.
Applicant argues that this limitation places definite bounds on the minimal interference, in the limitation “said magnetic field strength is selected for every pair of said magnetic rings so that it does not overlap or at least minimally interfere”, thereby resolving the 112(b) rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim text, as written, says that the interference between magnetic fields is not at least minimal (i.e. is less than minimal), and then limits where the minimal interference (that is not allowed to happen) happens. Read literally, the claim text requires minimal interference to be present and absent at the same. Meanwhile we still do not have precise bounds by which we can determine whether or not another inventor’s device is infringing on Applicant’s claim. The 112(b) rejection is therefore maintained. Since the new claim text finds no support in the originally filed disclosure, it is also rejected on 112(a) grounds.
Seeing as the “minimally interfere ...” limitation is apparently met by the Kolstad reference, and the claim defines allowable subject matter over Kolstad in spite of it, Applicant is advised that the claim could be amended into allowable condition by deleting that portion of the claim text that the 112 rejections are based on.
Applicant reiterates their previous argument, that Kolstad does not read on the limitation of a “...concentric configuration to minimally perturb a profile and a distribution of said incoming and outgoing air”, because Kolstad’s device comprises vanes which are intended to stir the incoming air.
This argument continues to be unpersuasive because "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)). Kolstad’s device apparently could be used in the recited way (even if Kolstad himself did not do so), and the limitation in question does not clearly suggest a structural feature that Kolstad’s device lacks. Therefore the prior art reads on this aspect of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795