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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12 and 14-20 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 regard to claim 12, the limitations “the UV light source being active both when the fluid is flowing through the purifying chamber and when the fluid is not flowing through the purifying chamber” and “upon determining a presence of flow of fluid through the purifying chamber activating the UV light source” render the claim indefinite. The claim requires the UV light source is active both when the fluid is flowing and not flowing through the purifying chamber; therefore, it is not clear what is meant by activating the UV light source since it is supposed to be present at all times regardless of flow conditions. Claims 14-20 are rejected as well since they depend on claim 12.
In regard to claim 14, the limitation “determining a time period of non-presence of flow of fluid….activating the UV light source” renders the claim indefinite. The claim requires the UV light source is active both when the fluid is flowing and not flowing through the purifying chamber; therefore, this limitation is not clear.
In regard to claim 19, the limitation “activating the UV light source” renders the claim indefinite. The claim requires the UV light source is active both when the fluid is flowing and not flowing through the purifying chamber; therefore, this limitation is not clear.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the driver”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms were not previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "comparing the measured radiant flux with a reference radiant flux, determining, by a processor, a drive current of the UV light source based on the measured radiant flux and the reference radiant flux"; this is a comparison and a mental step and abstract idea; the claims recite “determining whether a flow of a fluid through the purifying chamber is present” which is an observation and a mental step and abstract idea; the claims recite “determining by a processor, a drive current of the UV light source based on the measured radiant flux and the reference radiant flux” which is akin to a look up table, therefore an evaluation and an abstract idea; the claims recite “adjusting and applying the drive current of the UV light source based on the comparison” which is also is akin to a look up table, therefore an evaluation and an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim takes the result of the abstract idea, the operational status, and the controller adjusts the drive current of the UV light source based generally on the determined operational status this is insignificant post solution activity and is not considered a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Adjusting the drive current is not actually applying that drive to the system therefore there is no application of these abstract ideas and no particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
“activating the UV light source, the UV light source being located outside of the purifying chamber” is directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
“during the UV light source being active, differentiating UV light source degradation from turbidity within the purifying chamber by: measuring a radiant flux being emitted from the UV light source before the light emitted from the UV light source has entered the purifying chamber” is directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
“upon determining that a flow of fluid through the purifying chamber is not present, applying a drive current to the UV light source to produce a threshold radiant flux of UV light or a flashing radiant flux of UV light below the threshold, wherein the threshold is set so that the radiant flux of UV-light or the flashing radiant flux of UV light emitted from the UV-light or the flashing radiant flux of UV light emitted from the UV light source is < 5% of a maximum radiant flux of UV-light emitted from the UV light source” is directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 requires “determining whether a flow of a fluid through the purifying chamber is present; upon determining a presence of flow…adjusting and applying the drive current of the UV light source based on the comparison” and “and upon determining that a flow of fluid through the purifying chamber is not present, applying ….light source”. The Examiner interprets there to be two states; state A is there is flow and state B is there is not flow. Only one state is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROZENBERG et al. (US20140166590A1, hereinafter ROZENBERG).
In regard to claim 12, Rozenberg teaches a method for controlling a UV light source configured to emit UV light into a purifying chamber of a device for purifying a fluid (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]). Rozenberg teaches determining whether a flow of a fluid through the purifying chamber is present (abstract; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]). Rozenberg teaches upon determining presence of flow of fluid through the purifying chamber activate the UV light source, the UV light source being located outside of the purifying chamber (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]). Rozenberg teaches during the UV light source being active measure a radiant flux being emitted from the UV light source before the light emitted from the UV light source has entered the purifying chamber (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]; [0040]-[0046]). Rozenberg teaches compare the measured radiant flux with a reference radiant fluid (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]; [0040]-[0046]).
Rozenberg teaches differentiating UV light source degradation from turbidity within the purifying chamber ([0013]; [0025]-[0027]).
It would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that features from Figure 4 can be incorporated into Figure 1 because they are both directed towards UV disinfection systems and methods of operation. See also Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 89 USPQ.2d 1704, 1712 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.
Rozenberg teaches determine, by a processor, a drive current of the UV light source based on the measured radiant flux and the reference radiant flux (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]; [0034]; [0040]-[0046]). Rozenberg teaches adjust and applying the drive current of the UV light source based on the comparison (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]; [0034]; [0040]-[0046]).
Rozenberg teaches upon determining that a flow of fluid through the purifying chamber is not present, applying a drive current to the UV light source to produce a threshold radiant flux of UV light or a flashing radiant flux of UV light below the threshold ([0025]-[0027]; [0034]; [0045]). Although Rozenberg does not explicitly disclose that the threshold is set so that the radiant flux of UV-light emitted from the UV light source is ≤5% of a maximum radiant flux of UV-light emitted from the UV light source, this limitation is considered a workable range achievable through routine experimentation. Rozenberg discloses dynamically adjusting UV intensity based on real-time monitoring of fluid flow and UV transmission, reducing UV power when no flow is detected to optimize energy consumption and system longevity ([0025]-[0027]; [0034]; [0045]). Given that Rozenberg teaches adjusting UV intensity based on flow conditions, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to further optimize the reduction threshold as part of standard system efficiency improvements. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP§2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Rosenberg teahces determining a time period of non-presence of flow of fluid through the purifying chamber and activating the UV light source ([0044]-[0045]).
Although Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose a time period of 1-5 seconds, this limitation is considered a workable range achievable through routine experimentation. Rosenberg discloses monitoring fluid flow in real time and adjusting UV intensity based on flow conditions, including detecting non-presence of flow and responding accordingly to maintain system efficiency. Given the foundation provided by Rosenberg in tracking flow status over time and dynamically adjusting UV power, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to further optimize the duration of UV activation following a prolonged period of no flow as a predictable design choice to enhance system performance and operational reliability. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP§2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Rosenberg teaches a step of determining whether a flow of a fluid through the purifying chamber is present comprises measuring a flow rate of the fluid flowing through the purifying chamber wherein the method further comprises adjusting the drive current of the UV light source base don’t eh measured flow rate ([0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Rosenberg teaches upon the measured radiant flux being below a predetermined threshold generating a UV light source failure signal ([0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Rosenberg teaches UV liquid disinfection system of Claim 12. Rosenberg discloses a processor and memory within controller which store and execute program instructions for controlling a UV disinfection system (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium; [0023]). The processor executes stored program code to analyze sensor data, including salinity measurements from detector, and determine a salinity-adjusted UV dose level based on pre-stored reference data ([0023]). This data, stored in memory as a lookup table, allows the processor to compare detected salinity values to stored values and compute an appropriate UV dose level using interpolation or other computational methods ([0024]). Additionally, the controller is connected to user interface, which may include a screen, keyboard, mouse, or touch input devices, providing real-time system control and feedback. The processor further regulates UV source by adjusting the power supply based on sensor inputs, ensuring the desired UV dose is applied to the fluid ([0025]).
Processor receives measurements from salinity detector, UVT detectors, and flow meter to determine the desired UV dose level using pre-stored instructions in memory. The processor retrieves stored reference values and compares real-time sensor data to calculate an appropriate UV dose level, adjusting UV source intensity and fluid flow via valve accordingly ([0034]).
In operation, UV light transmission is measured using UVT detectors where one detector measures UV light directly from the source, and another measures the light after traversing a known distance in water. The processor processes real-time UVT data to assess UV intensity, contributing to determining the drive current for the driver based on a measured radiant flux comprised in the radiant flux signal ([0043]).
In operation, the method may include measuring the water flow rate in the UV disinfection system using flow meter, with flow detection occurring at the inlet of conduit. In operation, the method may include calculating the actual UV dose level based on UVT calculations and the detected flow rate ([0044]).
In operation, the method may include adjusting UV intensity and water flow rate to maintain the determined UV dose level, with processor controlling UV source and valve. Real-time UVT monitoring enables controller to compare detected UV dose levels to the desired UV dose level. If the detected UV dose is lower than required, the controller increases UV power, activates additional lamps, or decreases fluid flow. If no fluid flow is detected, the processor instructs the driver to apply a drive current below a threshold to the UV-light source ([0045]).
Rozenberg teaches controlling the power supply to the UV source ([0025]-[0026]). Furthermore, although Rozenberg does not explicitly disclose that the threshold is set so that the radiant flux of UV-light emitted from the UV light source is ≤5% of a maximum radiant flux of UV-light emitted from the UV light source, this limitation is considered a workable range achievable through routine experimentation. Rozenberg discloses dynamically adjusting UV intensity based on real-time monitoring of fluid flow and UV transmission, reducing UV power when no flow is detected to optimize energy consumption and system longevity. Given that Rozenberg already teaches adjusting UV intensity based on flow conditions, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to further optimize the reduction threshold as part of standard system efficiency improvements. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP§2144.05).
In regard to claim 20, Rozenberg teaches the drive current is further determined by determining a degradation of the UV light source based on the measured radiant flux and the reference radiant flux (abstract; [0001]; [0012]-[0013]; Figure 1; [0018]-[0026]; [0034]; [0040]-[0046]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROZENBERG in view of THOMAS et al. (US20190127253A1, hereinafter THOMAS).
Regarding Claim 16, Rozenberg teaches UV dose level is based on UV light intensity and flow rate ([0034]). In operation, UV light transmission may be measured using UVT detectors, where a first detector measures UV light directly from the source (i.e., measuring a radiant flux being emitted from the UV light source; [0043]), and a second detector measures UV light after it has traveled through a known distance in water. The UV transmission (UVT) is then calculated based on these measurements, with processor receiving real-time data from the detectors and calculating UVT values during operation. However, Rozenberg does not explicitly disclose that the UV light source and the reference radiant flux comprise a UV-C light radiant flux.
Advantageously, unlike chemical disinfectants, Thomas UV-C treatment produces no disinfection by-products, making it ideal for immediate consumption or bottling ([0242]). A person skilled in the art would recognize that UV-C light is the most germicidal in nature, as UV-C’s shorter wavelength effectively disrupts microbial DNA, leading to pathogen inactivation. This germicidal property makes UV-C the preferred choice for disinfection applications, as it neutralizes a wide range of pathogens without producing harmful byproducts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, to incorporate UV-C light as a disinfectant, as disclosed by Thomas, into the UV liquid disinfection system by Rozenberg.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROZENBERG in view of SCHALBLE et al. (US20040061069A1, hereinafter SCHALBLE).
Regarding Claim 17, Rozenberg makes obvious a UV liquid disinfection system of Claim 12. Rozenberg discloses that processor receives real-time measurements from salinity detectors, UVT detectors, and flow meter to regulate the UV disinfection system. The processor determines the appropriate UV dose level based on stored data and actively adjusts UV intensity via UV source and valve ([0034]). Additionally, controller monitors operational parameters, including UVT and flow rate, to detect deviations from desired levels. If the detected UV dose is lower than required, the system increases UV power, activates additional lamps, or reduces flow rate. If further adjustments are not possible, an alert is issued via user interface to indicate system inefficiency ([0045]). However, Rozenberg does not explicitly disclose “measuring a temperature of a LED of the UV light source, upon the measured temperature being above a predetermined threshold generate a LED overheat signal.”
Schalble discloses a fluid treatment system with a UV sensor and an intelligent driver/controller. The system detects UV intensity and fluid flow, with an intelligent driver processing input signals and controlling the UV emitter. Designed for small enterprise and consumer use, it includes a fluid treatment zone with an inlet, outlet, UV emitter, and sensor unit. The sensor detects fluid flow and UV light levels, while a display provides system information to the user (Pr. 0041).
Fig. 2 illustrates a UV fluid treatment system where multiple sensors connect to an intelligent driver (40) via a compatible communication bus. Sensor (56), positioned adjacent to UV emitter (30a), monitors temperature and UV levels within transparent housing (32a), allowing driver (40) to optimize UV emitter (30a) operation (i.e., measuring a temperature of an LED of the UV light source; Pr. 0050). Additionally, sensor (46) includes a temperature sensor to monitor system conditions, with its signal also serving as an indicator of fluid flow. If the UV emitter is active and fluid is not flowing, the temperature will rise, signaling a no-flow condition. These sensors enable the intelligent driver to process data and adjust system responses accordingly (i.e., upon the measured temperature being above a predetermined threshold, generate a LED overheat signal; Pr. 0051).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram: Fig. 2 from US20140166590A1
Advantageously, the fluid treatment system disclosed by SCHALBLE provides a streamlined architecture that integrates multiple fluid treatment functions into a single unit, eliminating the need for additional control devices and external monitoring components. Specifically, SCHALBLE discloses that one or more sensors communicate directly with an intelligent driver, which processes and responds to multiple operational parameters without requiring external processing devices (Pr. 0014). Furthermore, SCHALBLE consolidates UV intensity monitoring, fluid flow detection, and diagnostic functions into a single intelligent control unit, minimizing complexity and cost (Pr. 0024). By eliminating the need for separate controllers and costly external flow sensors, SCHALBLE presents a practical, cost-effective solution suited for small enterprises and consumer use, enhancing accessibility for residential and small-scale applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the temperature sensors, as disclosed by Schalble, with the UV liquid disinfection system by Rozenberg.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection; the limitations regarding “activating”, “applying”, and “instructing” add significantly more to the claim, the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
The argued limitations are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
In regard to the Applicant’s argument the level of the drive current is not dependent on the turbidity of water rather adjusted to compensate for changes in intensity of the UV light emitted from the UV light source; the claims provide a threshold which helps expel moisture from the electronics and prevent moisture accumulation and potential damage; the low threshold prolongs the lifespan by reducing thermal stress and power consumption; Rozenberg teaches when there is no flow there is no UV power supplied; the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
The rejection has been updated above in view of the claim amendments.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing moisture accumulation and potential damage; prolonged lifespan; reducing thermal stress; reducing power consumption) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777