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 .
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
NOTE: The claim set that are being examined are from 05/16/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “one of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 4 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “one of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 5 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 1 to 5. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 1 to 6. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 7 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 3 to 7. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 8 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 9 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 8 which is dependent on claim 3 to 7 . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 9 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “one of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 10 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 3-7. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 11 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 11 which is dependent on claims 3 to 7. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 12 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 12 which is dependent on 11 which is in turn dependent on claim 3 to 7. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “any of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “any of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim “one of the preceding claims”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 16 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: actuation means in claim 3. Note claims 8 and 9 also have a variation of actuation means however they are not being examined under merit at the moment. It is noted that the actuations means are being interpreted as per [21] of the specification to include electromechanical switch, electro-optical or biometric switch, or an electromagnetic switch.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)/2) as being anticipated by Rodenbeck et al. (WO 2017112795 A1).
Rodenbeck discloses an electronic fluid delivery system that includes a disinfection device for water treatment (Rodenbeck abstract).
For claim 1, water distribution and treatment system (Rodenbeck abstract and [0002-0004]), an inlet for connecting to a water supply source and an outlet for connecting to a water distribution device (Rodenbeck Fig. 1, [0005], [0025-0026], and [0059]), a solenoid valve electrically connected to an electrical supply and control device configured to allow water through the treatment system during the treatment mode or to bypass the cell during the non-treatment mode (Rodenbeck Figs. 2 and 4, [0030-0031, 0037, and 0041]), a water electrolysis module comprising at least two electrodes, (Rodenbeck claims 3 and 5, and [0041]; electrodes are mentioned indicating more than 1).
For claim 3, Rodenbeck further teaches that the power supply and control device is configured to electrically power the electrolysis module only under a control action of a user by actuation means (Rodenbeck abstract, [0003], [0038], [0033] and [0051]; conventional sensor (such as an infrared (IR), which is an electro-optical sensor)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenbeck et al. (WO 2017112795 A1), and further in view of Ginter et al. (US 20210363034 A1).
As mentioned above, Rodenbeck discloses an electronic fluid delivery system that includes a disinfection device for water treatment that generates ozone (Rodenbeck abstract).
For claim 2, although Rodenbeck teaches electrodes (Rodenbeck [0041, 0027, 0077], and claims 26 and 33]), Rodenbeck does not teach that at least one of the electrodes is a boron-doped diamond electrode, the boron concentration being between 200 ppm (3x1019 B atoms/cm3) and 1500 ppm (2x1020 B atoms/cm3).
Ginter discloses a device and method to clean water using boron-doped diamond electrodes to produce active oxygen/ozone (Ginter abstract and [0014] and [0064]), thus being analogous to Rodenbeck.
Ginter further teaches that the electrodes are boron doped and that the boron concentration is between 200 ppm (3x1019 B atoms/cm3) and 1500 ppm (2x1020 B atoms/cm3) (Ginter [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ginter of using boron doped electrode where the boron concentration is between 200 ppm (3x1019 B atoms/cm3) and 1500 ppm (2x1020 B atoms/cm3) to those of Rodenbeck to obtain the proper operating potential of the electrode in producing the desired active oxygen compound (Ginter [00075])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABELLINE K FIONAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm with every other Friday off.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/ABELLINE KATUSIIME FIONAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759