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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 3/16/2026. Claims 33-52 are pending in the application. Claims 47-52 have been withdrawn and claims 33-46 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the arguments.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller unit” in claim 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the controller unit will be interpreted as being a controller BUS system as described in the specification (page 4) and all equivalent structures.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 33-46 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. Specifically, claim 33 recites a “controller unit which controls a speed of the at least one fluid-moving element and an intensity of the at least one radiation source based on a measurement of airflow through the housing, such that a UV exposure of at least 8000 μW.s/cm2 is provided to a volume of fluid passing through the housing (emphasis added).” The specification describes that a dosage of 8000 μW.s/cm2 can be achieved (page 8, para 1; page 12, para 3-5) but does not provide support for dosages above this range. It is recommended that Applicant delete the phrase “at least” to resolve the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 33-34, 36, 40-42, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) (references herein made with respect to the English Machine translation) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), and Franklin et al. (US 20200038542) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 with an effective filing date of 8/6/2018).
Regarding claim 33, Cheol teaches an apparatus (Figs. 2, 4) for at least partially purifying a fluid via germicidal irradiation (abstract, page 2, para 5), comprising:
at least one fluid-moving element (120), located in a housing (110), for moving a fluid through at least one fluid inlet (111) in the housing towards at least one fluid outlet (115) in the housing,
wherein the housing comprises a dividing wall (171) that includes at least one fluid-flow aperture (see Annotation 1 below) in a fluid-flow pathway between the inlet and the outlet,
PNG
media_image1.png
674
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotation 1)]at least one fluid-flow expansion region (see Annotation 1 below),
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotation 2)]
PNG
media_image2.png
674
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a plurality of chamber regions (see Annotation 2);
at least one radiation source that provides ultraviolet radiation (light source module 140, page 6, para 3-4) for irradiating the fluid in at least one of the chamber regions; and,
at least one fluid-flow blocking element (Fig. 4, 172) each located between two adjacent chamber regions (located between final chamber and exit chamber, see Annotation 2), wherein the at least one fluid-flow blocking element comprises a wall member upstanding from a base member or extending from the cover member (Fig. 4,second inner wall 172 = fluid blocking element [page 8, para 6] upstands from base of the housing) for at least partially blocking a fluid-flow of fluid flowing between the two adjacent chamber regions and producing a major region of turbulent fluid-flow in at least one of the two adjacent chamber regions (page 8, para 6);
wherein each fluid-flow blocking element extends between 75% and 100% of a depth of a space between an inner surface of the base member and an inner surface of the cover member (Fig. 3-4, 172 extends 100% of space between the base and cover).
Cheol also teaches a controller unit configured to provide power to the deodorization module (control board = control unit, page 8, para 8) but fails to teach wherein the controller unit is configured to control a speed of the at least one fluid-moving element and an intensity of the at least one radiation source based on a measurement of airflow through the housing. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with providing an adequate residence time of air flowing through the housing to deliver an appropriate dosage of radiation and save energy, motivating one to turn towards Harbers.
Harbers teaches a fluid purification system (abstract) comprising an arrangement of UV light emitters and a control power control unit configured to control the amount of power supplied to the UV emitters (0024). Harbers teaches the power control unit to receive fluid-flow data and control the UV light intensity based on the rate of fluid passing through the system to conserve power ([0025-0026], [0028]).
Harbers is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit as taught by Cheol to include the power control unit as taught by Harbers since Harbers teaches the power control unit to control the UV intensity based on the rate of fluid passing through the purification system to conserve energy and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Cheol does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to control a speed of the at least one fluid-moving element based on a measurement of airflow through the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the speed of the fluid moving element to optimize the UV radiation delivered to the air flowing through the housing, motivating one to turn towards Palmer. Palmer teaches a system for reducing airborne contamination [abstract] comprising a controller (320) for controlling the speed of a variable speed fan (Fig. 1, 130, [0082], [0090]) based on an air flow measurement detected by an air flow sensor ([0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit as taught by Modified Cheol with the with the controller as taught by Palmer because Palmer teaches the controller to modify the speed of a fluid moving element based on a measurement of air flowing through a housing [0106] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Cheol does not teach wherein a UV exposure of at least 8000 μW.s/cm2 is provided to a volume of fluid passing through the housing. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with delivering a dosage of UV light that effectively damages microorganisms in the airflow, motivating one to turn towards Franklin. Franklin teaches a method for disinfecting air using UV light (abstract) wherein a dose of 12 mJ/cm2 (equivalent to 12000 μW.s/cm2) is identified as sufficient to damage bioaerosols in an air stream [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultraviolet light source as taught by Modified Cheol to emit a dosage of at least 8000 μW.s/cm2 of UV, such as 12000 μW.s/cm2 as taught by Franklin, since Franklin teaches this dosage of to be sufficient to deactivating bioaerosols in an air stream [0043] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 34, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, further comprising: at least one further fluid-flow blocking element (Cheol, Fig. 4, substrate 141 is understood to be further fluid flow blocking element for partially blocking air flow flowing through the region located between first chamber and antechamber, see Annotation 2 above), each located within a respective one of the chamber regions (substrate 141 located between antechamber and first chamber, see Annotation 2 above), for at least partially blocking a fluid-flow of fluid flowing within a respective chamber region and producing a minor region of turbulent fluid-flow within a respective chamber region (substrate 141 is orthogonal to air flowing through the chamber [page 5, para 9] and is therefore partially blocking the flow of fluid, which one having ordinary skill in the art understands as causing minor regions of turbulent flow) wherein the further fluid-flow blocking element comprises a bar member that extends across a whole or a portion of a width of a housing (substrate 141 comprises a bar that extends across whole width of housing, see Annotation 2) and/or a base member of the housing.
Regarding claim 36, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein the at least one radiation source comprises: at least one radiation emitting element that emits ultraviolet radiation (Cheol, light source module 140 comprises ultraviolet LED, page 6, para 3-4).
Regarding claim 40, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein: the housing further comprises the base member (Cheol, Fig. 2, bottom of housing 110 = base), and an upstanding sidewall member extending around a perimeter of the base member, (Fig. 1, housing 110 also includes a cover and a sidewall).
The following recitations of claim 40 are not being given patentable weight since they are optional, but nonetheless are being mapped for compact prosecution: Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein optionally each fluid inlet and each fluid outlet comprises a through hole in the cover member (Cheol, Fig. 4, inlet/outlet 111 and 115 respectively, comprise a row of arcuate slits in the housing 110 = through holes), and further optionally the fluid inlet and/or the fluid outlet comprises a slit or a row of discrete holes in the cover member and optionally the row of discrete holes or the slit is arcuate (Fig. 4, through holes in housing 110 are slits).
Regarding claim 41, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 40, comprising a fluid-flow blocking element (Cheol, Fig. 4, 172) configured to retain air on both sides of the ion generator 150 and increase contact time with the ions to improve deodorization efficiency (Cheol, page 8, para 6).
Modified Cheol fails to explicitly teach wherein each fluid-flow blocking element has a length that is between 90% and 50% of a width between the side wall on opposed sides of the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the only difference between the fluid-flow blocking element of Modified Cheol and the fluid-flow blocking element as claimed by the Applicant is the size/proportion of the length of the blocking element and that changing the length of the fluid-flow blocking element to be between 90% to 50% of a width between the side wall on opposed sides of the housing would increase the both residence time of the air on both sides of the ion generator and contact time with the ions, improving deodorization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the length of the fluid-flow blocking element as disclosed by Cheol to extend between 90% to 50% of a width between the side wall on opposed sides of the housing of the sterilization chamber to increase the both residence time of the air on both sides of the ion generator and contact time with the ions, improving deodorization and modifying the size/proportion of an element has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 42, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein: each further fluid-flow blocking element (Fig. 4, substrate 141) further comprises a bar member that extends across a whole or a portion of a width of the housing between a side wall on opposed sides of the housing (Cheol, 141 comprises a bar that extends across a whole width of the housing), and each bar member is proximate to the base member or to the cover member of the housing (141 proximate to both base and cover of housing) and has a depth of space between an inner surface of the base member of the housing and an inner surface of the cover member of the housing (See Fig. 4). Modified Cheol further teaches wherein each further fluid-flow blocking element has a depth between 2% and 30% of a depth of a space between an inner surface of the base member of the housing and an inner surface of the cover member of the housing (Cheol, Fig. 3-4, 141 has a height greater than 2% and less than 30% of the depth between an inner surface of the base and the cover).
Regarding claim 46, Modified Cheol teaches a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 33 (Cheol, page 14, para 5, the deodorization module may be mounted in a car).
Claim(s) 35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), Franklin et al. (US 20200038542), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Krosney (WO 2017070359).
Regarding claim 35, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, including at least one fluid moving element (Cheol, Fig. 2, fan 120), wherein the fluid moving element is located in the center of the apparatus.
Modified Cheol does not teach a first fluid-moving element located proximate to the fluid inlet or the fluid outlet and a further fluid-moving element is located proximate to a remainder of the fluid inlet or the fluid outlet for moving the fluid through the fluid outlet.
Krosney teaches a sterilization apparatus for purifying air with ultraviolet light (abstract) including a fan (fan 120, 284, para 0038, 0040) which may comprise a plurality of fans with one fan positioned at the inlet of the apparatus, a fan between the one or more irradiation chambers of the apparatus, and a fan at the apparatus outlet (para 0058).
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the inlet and outlet fans of Krosney to the apparatus of Modified Cheol to provide a user greater control over the air velocity in different sterilization chambers of the apparatus and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A), MPEP 2144.06 (I).
Regarding claim 37, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, further comprising: a controller unit (Cheol, control board = control unit, page 8, para 8), connected to the at least one fluid- moving element and the at least one radiation source, for providing respective control signals to each of the at least one fluid-moving element and radiation source (control board connected to electrical components with a wire to supply power = understood to be connected to fan and radiation source, supply of power understood to be control signal).
Modified Cheol also teaches a power unit (Cheol, control board controls power supply = also understood to be a power unit, page 8, para 8), connected to the at least one fluid-moving element and the at least one radiation source, for providing respective power signals to each of the at least one fluid-moving element and radiation source (control board connected to electrical components with a wire to supply power = understood to be connected to fan and radiation source, supply of power = power signal). Modified Cheol fails to teach a controller interface and a power connection interface, motivating one to turn towards Krosney.
Krosney further teaches a control module (110 and 228) electrically connected to ultraviolet LEDs and a fan, wherein the control module comprises power regulation means, user input means, and display means, which is understood to meet the limitation of a control and power connection interface (0080) to provide receive input and provide feedback to a user (para 0040).
The combination of the known elements (the control board of Modified Cheol and the control module of Krosney) can be achieved by a known method of electrical coupling. Therefore, the results of providing a controller and power interface would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control board of Modified Cheol and control module of Krosney since Krosney teaches the control module to regulate power of the electrical components within the sterilization apparatus and provide feedback to a user (para 0040, para 0080) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements and all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner. Specifically, the control board of Modified Cheol and control module of Krosney would still be electrically coupled to and control a fan and ultraviolet lighting element.
Regarding claim 38, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 37, wherein: the controller unit comprises the power unit (Cheol, page 8, para 8, control board controls power supply = also understood to be a power unit); and/or the respective power signals comprise the respective control signals (control board connected to electrical components with a wire to supply power = understood to be connected to fan and radiation providing device, supply of power = power signal).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), Franklin et al. (US 20200038542), and Krosney (WO 2017070359), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Blackley (US 20160361972).
Regarding claim 39, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the apparatus can be included within an internal space such as a car (Cheol, page 14, para 5) wherein the apparatus includes the controller unit discussed above. Modified Cheol does not teach wherein the controller unit can include a Controlled Area Network (CAN) bus unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with when to actuate the sterilization device with respect to the occupants and critical operations in the vehicle, motivating one to turn towards Blackley,
Blackley teaches an air analyzer and treatment system for a vehicle (abstract, para 0044) in communication with a plurality of network nodes (para 0046) using a bus (para 0051, para 0053, understood to be a bus unit) to detect a condition of the air and providing a notification to a user (para 0084) via a user interface (para 0113). The network can be a private, local area network (para 0116) understood to be a controlled area network (CAN).
The combination of the known elements (the controller of Modified Cheol and the communication device and bus unit of Blackley) can be achieved by a known method of electrical coupling. Therefore, the results of the apparatus communicating with a controller area network would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the controller of Modified Cheol with the bus unit and communication device of Blackley since Blackley teaches the device and unit to share operational data with a user (para 0084, 0113) allowing a user to make informed decisions on when to actuate the sterilization device and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements and all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner. Specifically, the controller of Modified Cheol would still control the electrical component of the purifying apparatus and the bus unit of Blackley would still detect operational data within a vehicle and communicate with a user.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), Franklin et al. (US 20200038542), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Soler (US 20120138545).
Regarding claim 43, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein the apparatus includes at least one full height fluid-flow blocking element (Cheol, Fig. 4, 172) and at least one shallow fluid-flow blocking element (Cheol, Fig. 4, 171) but does not teach wherein each fluid-flow blocking element comprises at least one vortex shedding site. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the efficiency of the apparatus, as more turbulent flow would lead to greater sterilization, motivating one to turn towards Soler.
Soler teaches a fluid purification system configured to treat fluid with radiation (abstract) wherein the system comprises reflectors (Fig. 1A, 106) intended to create turbulent fluid flow, wherein each reflector is understood to be a vortex shedding site (para 0024).
The combination of the known elements can be achieved by a known method of adhesive bonding. Therefore, the results of combining the fluid blocking elements of Modified Cheol with the reflectors of Soler to induce vortex shedding within the apparatus would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fluid blocking elements of Modified Cheol with the reflectors of Soler to induce vortex shedding within the apparatus since Soler teaches the reflectors to cause turbulence and increase the efficiency of sterilization (para 0016) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements and all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner. Specifically, the fluid-flow blocking elements of Modified Cheol would still block fluid flow in a sterilization apparatus and the reflectors of Soler would still cause turbulence within a fluid sterilization apparatus.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), Franklin et al. (US 20200038542), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Ma (US 20100193421).
Regarding claim 44, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein: the housing further comprises an antechamber between the fluid inlet and a first of the chamber regions (see Annotation 2 above). Modified Cheol fails to teach wherein the housing includes mutually inclined walls that face an interior of the antechamber proximate to the fluid-flow aperture thereby providing a narrowing of the antechamber proximate to the fluid-flow aperture wherein the narrowing antechamber is narrower proximate to the fluid-flow aperture than distal to the fluid-flow aperture. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize other configurations of the internal arrangement of chambers of Cheol may lead to more optimal fluid flow, motivating one to look towards Ma.
Ma teaches a fluid treatment system for treating a fluid with radiation (abstract) including a plurality of fluid flow deflectors on opposed walls of a reactor (Fig. 3, 222, 223, 227, 228, para 0048, 0084) that project into a fluid treatment channel 215 to direct fluid towards a radiation source. Ma teaches the deflectors to minimize the hydraulic head loss of the fluid being treated which presents a cost savings (para 0051-0052)
The combination of the known elements can be achieved by a known method of remolding. Therefore, the results of combining the antechamber of Modified Cheol with the deflectors of Ma to minimize the hydraulic head loss of the fluid being treated within the apparatus would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antechamber of Modified Cheol with the deflectors of Ma to minimize the hydraulic head loss of the fluid being treated and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements and all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner. Specifically, the deflectors of Ma would still force fluid towards a radiation source and the apparatus of Modified Cheol would still sterilize fluid.
Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the difference between the shape of the housing as claimed by the Applicant and apparatus as claimed by Modified Cheol as an obvious matter of design choice, wherein the shape as claimed may lead to a slightly more optimal flow of fluid or provide a negligible improvement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of Modified Cheol’s housing walls to a mutually inclined configuration wherein the walls facing the interior of the antechamber are narrower proximate to the fluid-flow aperture than distal to the fluid-flow, as changes of shape have already been found obvious (see MPEP 2144.04)(IV)(B)).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheol (WO 2018199506) in view of Harbers (US 20060283786), Palmer (US 20150359921), Franklin et al. (US 20200038542), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Lee (KR 20190101750).
Regarding claim 45, Modified Cheol teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein: the housing further comprises an exit chamber between a final chamber region of the chamber regions and the fluid outlet (see Annotation 2 above). Modified Cheol fails to teach wherein the housing includes mutually inclined walls that face an interior of the exit chamber proximate to an exit aperture in a dividing wall between the final chamber region and the exit chamber thereby providing a broadening out of the exit chamber proximate to the exit aperture, the broadening out of the exit chamber being narrower proximate to the exit aperture and extending in a flared out arrangement towards a central region of the exit chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize other configurations of the internal arrangement of chambers of Modified Cheol may lead to more optimal fluid flow, motivating one to look towards Lee.
Lee teaches a sterilization apparatus for irradiating air with UV light (abstract) including an embodiment in Figures 5 and 6 wherein the housing of the apparatus includes a body 102 that is narrower at the inlet and broadens as it approaches the outlet (page 5, para 9-13, Fig. 5-6) to reduce the flowrate of air flowing through the device (page 6, para 1), which would increase residence time of air within the device and sterilization efficiency.
The combination of the known elements can be achieved by a known method of remolding. Therefore, the results of combining the exit chamber of Modified Cheol with the broadening body walls of Lee to reduce the flowrate of air leaving the apparatus and increase sterilization efficiency would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the exit chamber of Modified Cheol with the broadening body walls of Lee to reduce the flowrate of air leaving the apparatus (Lee, page 6, para 1) which would increase the residence time and sterilization of the air within the apparatus and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the difference between the shape of the housing as claimed by the Applicant and apparatus as claimed by Modified Cheol as an obvious matter of design choice, wherein the shape as claimed may lead to a slightly more optimal flow of fluid or provide a negligible improvement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of Modified Cheol’s housing walls to a mutually inclined configuration wherein the walls that face an interior of the exit chamber proximate to an exit aperture in a dividing wall are narrower proximate to the exit aperture extending in a flared out arrangement towards s central region of the exit chamber and as changes of shape have already been found obvious (see MPEP 2144.04)(IV)(B)). See Annotation 3 below.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3: Annotation 3)]
PNG
media_image3.png
674
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 8 of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026, the Applicant argues Cheol in view of Harbers does not teach a controller unit that is configured to control a speed of the at least one fluid-moving element and an intensity of the at least one radiation source with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Palmer (US 20150359921 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 3/16/2026, the Applicant argues Cheol in view of Harbers does not teach wherein a UV exposure of at least 8000 μW.s/cm2 is provided to a volume of fluid passing through the housing with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Franklin (US 20200038542) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 with an effective filing date of 8/6/2018). See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights