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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 26 has overcome one of the 35 USC 112 rejections. The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections for claim 24, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112 rejections in the present set of Claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 17 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Claim 6 is allowed.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 27 March 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 21, and 23 have been amended. Claim 26 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-25 are pending.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
In claim 24, the limitation: “wherein the first UV chamber and the second UV chamber each comprise only one UV lamp” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. The examiner understands the limitation “only” to be a negative claim limitation (interpreted as requiring that each chamber comprises no more than one UV lamp). Claims that recite negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05.i). As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites: “wherein the first UV chamber and the second UV chamber each comprise only one UV lamp.” This limitation uses “comprise.” When “comprising” is used, then additional elements can be included (MPEP 2111.03). However, the limitation appears to use a negative limitation: “only” is understood as requiring that only one UV lamp is permitted per chamber (no more lamps are permitted). Furthermore, this limitation does not have basis in the Specification (see 35 USC 112a rejection above; the Specification discloses “at least one UV lamp”). Although negative claim limitations are permitted within claims (MPEP 2173.05.i), because this limitation is not disclosed in the Specification, there is ambiguity about how it should be interpreted. One of ordinary skill could not possibly know if they were infringing on this limitation, because it cannot be understood in view of the Specification. Thus, it is unclear how many UV lamps are required within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “each comprise at least one UV lamp.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Snowball teaches a system (“process module,” para 0163) for treating a viscous fluid (“Fluid,” para 0163; “viscosity of less than 200 centipoise,” para 0008), the system comprising:
a first mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the left tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7 below) configured to receive the viscous fluid (the left duct 100 receives fluid from inlet duct 107, fig. 7; fluid flows “downwardly,” para 0145) and to generate turbulent flow of the viscous fluid (“fully turbulent,” para 0162; generates turbulent flow using the baffles 9 or the mixers 103);
a first UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the left duct 100 below the annotated “mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7; chamber 1, fig. 1) downstream of the first mixer (based on para 0145, the fluid flows downwards from the duct 107 through the left apparatus 100, through the bottom manifold 106, and then upwards through the right apparatus 100; the construed first UV chamber is located downstream of the construed first mixer, annotated fig. 7), the first UV chamber configured to receive the viscous fluid from the mixer (as shown in annotated fig. 7) and to expose the viscous fluid to a dose of UV light (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2),
a second mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the right tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7) downstream of the first UV chamber (the fluid flows downwards in the left tube from the inlet 101 and then upwards in the right tube to the outlet 102 in fig. 7, para 0144; the construed “second mixer” is downstream of the “first UV chamber,” annotated fig. 7), the second mixer configured to receive the viscous fluid from the first UV chamber (fluid flows “upwardly” in the right duct, para 0145) and to generate turbulent flow of the viscous fluid (“fully turbulent,” para 0162; generates turbulent flow using the baffles 9 or the mixers 103); and
a second UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the right duct 100 above the annotated “Second Mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7; chamber 1, fig. 1) downstream of the second mixer (the fluid flows upwards in the right tube in fig. 7; the construed “second UV chamber” is downstream of the “second mixer,” annotated fig. 7), configured to receive the viscous fluid from the second mixer (as shown in annotated fig. 7) and to expose the viscous fluid to a second dose of UV light to produce a treated viscous fluid (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2; the dose is a “density” measurement based on the circular cross section of the duct; construed such that the UV powder density is 257 mJ/cm2 for all of twenty of the UV tubes/ducts), and
wherein the second mixer is coupled to the first UV chamber by a first pipe and to the second UV chamber by a second pipe (the outer housing of the chamber 1 is construed as be a pipe because fluid flows into the gap 12, para 0086; the construed “first pipe” and “second pipe” are annotated in figs. 1 and 7 below, and the coupling is shown in fig. 1).
Snowball, figs. 7 and 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
944
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
501
970
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment, Snowball does not explicitly disclose wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light, and wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of at least 50 cP.
However, in a different embodiment, Snowball teaches wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of at least 50 cP (“edible oil has a viscosity of at least 30 cP (mPa·s) and less than 70 cP (mPa·s),” para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 7 and experiment 1 in Table 1, in view of the teachings of another embodiment, by using edible oil in the process module, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a viscosity fluid of less than 200 centipoise, which ensures a specific fluid flow between the baffles, providing effective mixing of fluids without modifying their texture or consistency in a manner that is noticeable to consumers (para 0008) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Snowball does not explicitly disclose wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Duthie teaches wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together (“fluid particle irradiation,” para 0086) deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light (in fig. 20, Duthie teaches that the particles receive over 4000 mJ/cm2 at particle points 61-88).
Duthie, fig. 20
PNG
media_image3.png
991
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Duthie, by increasing the lamp wattage, as taught by Duthie, for the UV light sources, as taught by Snowball, over time in order to provide more ultraviolet light energy, decreasing the overall amount of time required to sanitize the fluid (Duthie, paras 0052 and 0086).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Snowball in view of Duthie as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Snowball teaches wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of 50 cP to 250 cP (“edible oil has a viscosity of at least 30 cP (mPa·s) and less than 70 cP (mPa·s),” para 0020; “less than 200 centipoise,” para 0008).
Regarding claim 5, Snowball teaches wherein first mixer and the second mixer (annotated in fig. 7 above) are each a static mixer (“baffles,” para 0162; construed as “static” because the baffles do not move but instead have formations that control the fluid flow, paras 0143-0147).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Guamis Alegre et al. (US-20170128603-A1).
Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first UV chamber is configured to expose the viscous fluid to UV light for about 1 second to about 5 seconds, and wherein the second UV chamber is configured to expose the viscous fluid UV light for about 1 second to about 5 seconds (although Snowball teaches a “dwell time,” Snowball does not explicitly disclose any dwell time durations).
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Guamis Alegre teaches wherein the first UV chamber (“chambers,” para 0050; fig. 3) is configured to expose the viscous fluid to UV light (UV emitter 1, fig. 3) for about 1 second to about 5 seconds (“Time,” equation 1, para 0051; “3 s,” Tables 1-3), and wherein the second UV chamber is configured to expose the viscous fluid UV light for about 1 second to about 5 second (“Time,” equation 1, para 0051; “3 s,” Tables 1 and 2).
Guamis Alegre, fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
1184
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Guamis Alegre, by trying an exposure time of three seconds, as taught by Guamis Alegre, for the dwell time, as taught by Snowball, in order to use an exposure time sufficient to eliminate different microorganisms from an aqueous solution and because the exposure time is a results-effective variable that should be optimized based on the type of anticipated microorganism and desired lethality, which is based on the amount of UV-C light irradiance (Guamis Alegre, paras 0051-0060).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. (CN-210184423-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar, and wherein the system further comprises a melting tank, the melting tank configured to form the liquid sugar from water and sugar.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Liu teaches wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar (“syrup” that includes “sugar,” para 0018), and wherein the system further comprises a melting tank (sugar dissolving pot 2, fig. 1; hot water is provided from the hot water tank 1, which causes the sugar to dissolve, para 0018 and fig. 1), the melting tank configured to form the liquid sugar from water and sugar (para 0018).
Liu, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
472
906
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Liu, by using the sugar dissolving pot 2, as taught by Liu, to provide the fluid for the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, because customers desire carbonated beverages, and a sugar dissolving pot provides a syrup that is more consistent, thus improving the product quality of the beverage, in comparison to how carbonated beverages are traditionally prepared by pouring syrup into a pot, resulting in uneven melting (Liu, paras 0004-0012).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bojorquez Valenzuela al. (US-20100307485-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar having a sugar content from 60 Brix to 70 Brix.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Bojorquez Valenzuela teaches wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar (“sugar syrup,” para 0016) having a sugar content from 60 Brix to 70 Brix (“preferably 67° Brix,” para 0016).
Bojorquez Valenzuela, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
881
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Bojorquez Valenzuela, by using a sugar syrup of 67 Brix, as taught by Bojorquez Valenzuela, as the fluid for the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a preferred concentration of raw sugar syrup that is within the standards set forth by International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (Bojorquez Valenzuela, paras 0004 and 0016).
Regarding claim 10. Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid is liquid sugar having a sugar content from 67 Brix to 68 Brix.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Bojorquez Valenzuela teaches wherein the viscous fluid is liquid sugar (“sugar syrup,” para 0016) having a sugar content from 67 Brix to 68 Brix (“preferably 67° Brix,” para 0016)
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball to include, wherein the viscous fluid is liquid sugar having a sugar content from 67 Brix to 68 Brix, in view of the teachings of Bojorquez Valenzuela, by using a sugar syrup of 67 Brix, as taught by Bojorquez Valenzuela, as the fluid for the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a preferred concentration of raw sugar syrup that is within the standards set forth by International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (Bojorquez Valenzuela, paras 0004 and 0016).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) and Bojorquez Valenzuela al. (US-20100307485-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20140001109-A1).
Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid has an ultraviolet transmittance of about 25% to about 50%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Lee teaches wherein the viscous fluid (“fluid,” para 0005) has an ultraviolet transmittance of about 25% to about 50% (“about” is understood to mean a tolerance of 10% in view of the Specification; Lee teaches a “transmissivity” for “UV sterilization” of 60% or 40-50%, para 0005; construed as 40-60%, which is within the claimed range of 15-60% in view of the Specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using a transmissivity of 40-60%, as taught by Lee, for the sugar syrup, as taught by Bojorquez Valenzuela, because when the transmissivity is in this range, then UV sterilization is judged to be economical or effective, because when the transmissivity is less than 40%, then UV sterilization is not generally applied, because it is known in the art that if the transmissivity is too low, then the UV energy transmits does not fully radiate through the fluid or if instead the transmissivity is too high, then the UV radiation is not absorbed by the fluid, where both extremes (too low or too high transmissivity) prevent the fluid from being sterilized (Lee, paras 0004-0007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Livne al. (US-20170303555-A1).
Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to maintain the viscous fluid at a Reynolds number of at least 2200 through the first UV chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Livne teaches wherein the system (fig. 3) is configured to maintain the viscous fluid (“Turbulent flow of liquid foods,” para 0007) at a Reynolds number of at least 2200 (“Re>4000 indicates turbulent flow,” para 0007) through the first UV chamber (pipes 30 and 31, fig. 3).
Livne, fig. 3
PNG
media_image7.png
344
1010
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Livne, by using a Reynolds number above 4000, as taught by Livne, for the fluid in the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to ensure that a turbulent flow takes place, which causes more uniform fluid mixing, resulting in a more efficient treatment and sanitization process and because the Reynolds number is a results-effective variable that should be optimized based on the density of the fluid, flow velocity, dynamic viscosity of the fluid, and the diameter of the carrying tube (Livne, paras 0007 and 0252; Snowball teaches providing a “turbulent flow,” para 0006).
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Livne al. (US-20170303555-A1) and Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Snowball teaches a method of treating a viscous fluid (“methods and apparatus for disinfecting fluids,” para 0001; “viscosity of less than 200 centipoise,” para 0008), wherein the method comprises flowing the viscous fluid through a first mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the left tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7 above);
flowing the viscous fluid through a pipe (the outer housing of the chamber 1 is construed as be a pipe because fluid flows into the gap 12, para 0086; the construed “pipe” is annotated in fig. 7 below) from the first mixer to a first UV chamber (fluid flows downwards through the left duct from the inlet 101, para 0144);
flowing the viscous fluid through the first UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the left duct 100 below the annotated “mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7; chamber 1, fig. 1) downstream of the first mixer (based on para 0145, the fluid flows downwards from the duct 107 through the left apparatus 100, through the bottom manifold 106, and then upwards through the right apparatus 100; the construed first UV chamber is located downstream of the construed first mixer, annotated fig. 7) to expose the viscous fluid to UV light (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2).
Snowball, fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
944
590
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment, Snowball does not explicitly disclose the viscous fluid flows with a Reynolds number of at least 2200; exposing the viscous fluid to UV light such that the viscous fluid receives a total dose of UV light of at least 500 mJ/cm2, wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of 50 cP to 250 cP.
However, in a different embodiment, Snowball teaches wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of 50 cP to 250 cP (“edible oil has a viscosity of at least 30 cP (mPa·s) and less than 70 cP (mPa·s),” para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 7 and experiment 1 in Table 1, by using edible oil in the process module, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a viscosity fluid of less than 200 centipoise, which ensures a specific fluid flow between the baffles, providing effective mixing of fluids without modifying their texture or consistency in a manner that is noticeable to consumers (para 0008) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Snowball does not explicitly disclose the viscous fluid flows with a Reynolds number of at least 2200; exposing the viscous fluid to UV light such that the viscous fluid receives a total dose of UV light of at least 500 mJ/cm2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Livne teaches the viscous fluid (“Turbulent flow of liquid foods,” para 0007) flows with a Reynolds number of at least 2200 (“Re>4000 indicates turbulent flow,” para 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Livne, by using a Reynolds number above 4000, as taught by Livne, for the fluid in the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to ensure that a turbulent flow takes place, which causes more uniform fluid mixing, resulting in a more efficient treatment and sanitization process and because the Reynolds number is a results-effective variable that should be optimized based on the density of the fluid, flow velocity, dynamic viscosity of the fluid, and the diameter of the carrying tube (Livne, paras 0007 and 0252; Snowball teaches providing a “turbulent flow,” para 0006).
Snowball/Livne do not explicitly disclose exposing the viscous fluid to UV light such that the viscous fluid receives a total dose of UV light of at least 500 mJ/cm2.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Duthie teaches exposing the viscous fluid to UV light such that the viscous fluid receives a total dose of UV light (“fluid particle irradiation,” para 0086) of at least 500 mJ/cm2 (in fig. 20, Duthie teaches that the particles receive over 4000 mJ/cm2 at particle points 61-88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Duthie, by increasing the lamp wattage, as taught by Duthie, for the UV light sources, as taught by Snowball, over time in order to provide more ultraviolet light energy, decreasing the overall amount of time required to sanitize the fluid (Duthie, paras 0052 and 0086).
Regarding claim 14, Snowball teaches wherein the exposing the viscous fluid to UV light comprises: flowing the viscous fluid through the first UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the left duct 100 below the annotated “mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7 above; chamber 1, fig. 1) to expose the viscous fluid to a first dose of UV light, the first dose being at least 250 mJ/cm2 (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2).
Regarding claim 15, Snowball teaches further comprising: flowing the viscous fluid through a second mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the right tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7 above).
Snowball does not explicitly disclose such that the viscous fluid flows with a Reynolds number of at least 2200.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Livne teaches the viscous fluid (“Turbulent flow of liquid foods,” para 0007) flows with a Reynolds number of at least 2200 (“Re>4000 indicates turbulent flow,” para 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Livne, by using a Reynolds number above 4000, as taught by Livne, for the fluid in the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to ensure that a turbulent flow takes place, which causes more uniform fluid mixing, resulting in a more efficient treatment and sanitization process and because the Reynolds number is a results-effective variable that should be optimized based on the density of the fluid, flow velocity, dynamic viscosity of the fluid, and the diameter of the carrying tube (Livne, paras 0007 and 0252; Snowball teaches providing a “turbulent flow,” para 0006).
Regarding claim 16, Snowball teaches wherein the viscous fluid flows from the first mixer to the first UV chamber (the left duct 100 receives fluid from inlet duct 107, fig. 7; fluid flows “downwardly,” para 0145), and wherein the viscous fluid flows from the first UV chamber to the second mixer (fluid flows “upwardly” in the right duct, para 0145).
Regarding claim 17, Snowball teaches wherein the exposing the viscous fluid to UV light comprises:
flowing the viscous fluid through a second UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the right duct 100 above the annotated “Second Mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7 above; chamber 1, fig. 1) to expose the viscous fluid to a second dose of UV light, the second dose being at least 250 mJ/cm2 (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2; the dose is a “density” measurement based on the circular cross section of the duct; construed such that the UV powder density is 257 mJ/cm2 for all of twenty of the UV tubes/ducts),
wherein the total dose comprises the first dose and the second dose (examiner understands these dose measurements to be density measurements over time; construed such that over the combined time, the passage of 20 UV tubes, each with a density of 257 mJ/cm2, will eventually surpass the 4000 mJ/cm2 taught by Duthie).
Regarding claim 20, Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is a continuous process configured to treat at least 1000 gallons of viscous fluid per hour (Snowball teaches “3,000 litres per hour” or 782 gallons/hr, which is less than 1000 gallons/hr).
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Livne teaches wherein the method is a continuous process (“continuous flow,” para 0007) configured to treat at least 1000 gallons of viscous fluid per hour (“flow rate of 5000 L liter/hour,” para 0116; this rate is equivalent to 1321 gallons/hr).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Livne, by using a flow rate of 5000 liter/hour, as taught by Livne, instead of 3000 liter/hour, as taught by Snowball, in order to increase the amount of the fluid that can be supplied, for the advantage of providing an increased amount of sanitized fluid over the same time frame.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Livne al. (US-20170303555-A1), and Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Bojorquez Valenzuela al. (US-20100307485-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar having a sugar content from 60 Brix to 70 Brix.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Bojorquez Valenzuela teaches wherein the viscous fluid is a liquid sugar (“sugar syrup,” para 0016) having a sugar content from 60 Brix to 70 Brix (“preferably 67° Brix,” para 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Bojorquez Valenzuela, by using a sugar syrup of 67 Brix, as taught by Bojorquez Valenzuela, as the fluid for the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a preferred concentration of raw sugar syrup that is within the standards set forth by International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (Bojorquez Valenzuela, paras 0004 and 0016).
Regarding claim 19. Snowball teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscous fluid is liquid sugar having a sugar content from 67 Brix to 68 Brix.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Bojorquez Valenzuela teaches wherein the viscous fluid is liquid sugar (“sugar syrup,” para 0016) having a sugar content from 67 Brix to 68 Brix (“preferably 67° Brix,” para 0016)
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball, in view of the teachings of Bojorquez Valenzuela, by using a sugar syrup of 67 Brix, as taught by Bojorquez Valenzuela, as the fluid for the UV sterilizer, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a preferred concentration of raw sugar syrup that is within the standards set forth by International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (Bojorquez Valenzuela, paras 0004 and 0016).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowball (US-20140328985-A1) in view of Duthie et al. (US-20080206095-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Snowball teaches a fluid (“Fluid,” para 0163) treatment device (“process module,” para 0163), the device comprising:
a first mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the left tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7 above) configured to generate turbulent flow in a viscous fluid (“fully turbulent,” para 0162; generates turbulent flow using the baffles 9 or the mixers 103; “viscosity of less than 200 centipoise,” para 0008);
a first UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the left duct 100 above the annotated “mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7 above; chamber 1, fig. 1) configured to deliver a first dose of UV light to the viscous fluid (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2);
a second mixer (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series. Each tube had nine mixing devices 18,” para 0163; construed as one of the mixing devices 103 on the right tube/duct 100, annotated fig. 7 above) configured to generate turbulent flow in the viscous fluid (“fully turbulent,” para 0162; generates turbulent flow using the baffles 9 or the mixers 103);
a second UV chamber (“20 UV tube/duct arrangements coupled together in series,” para 0163; construed as the right duct 100 above the annotated “Second Mixer” combined with the UV radiation 104, annotated fig. 7 above; chamber 1, fig. 1) configured to deliver a second dose of UV light to the viscous fluid (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2; the dose is a “density” measurement based on the circular cross section of the duct; construed such that the UV powder density is 257 mJ/cm2 for all of twenty of the UV tubes/ducts)
wherein the second mixer is downstream of the first UV chamber (the fluid flows downwards in the left tube from the inlet 101 and then upwards in the right tube to the outlet 102 in fig. 7, para 0144; the construed “second mixer” is downstream of the “first UV chamber,” annotated fig. 7) and coupled to the first UV chamber by a first pipe (the outer housing of the chamber 1 is construed as be a pipe because fluid flows into the gap 12, para 0086; the construed “first pipe” is annotated in figs. 1 and 7 above, and the coupling is shown in fig. 1), and
wherein the second mixer is upstream of the second UV chamber (the fluid flows upwards in the right tube in fig. 7; the construed “second mixer” is upstream of the “second UV chamber,” annotated fig. 7) and coupled to the second UV chamber by a second pipe (the construed “second pipe” is annotated in figs. 1 and 7 above, and the coupling is shown in fig. 1).
Snowball does not explicitly disclose wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing fluids using ultraviolet radiation, Duthie teaches wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light (in fig. 20, Duthie teaches that the particles receive over 4000 mJ/cm2 at particle points 61-88; examiner understands these dose measurements to be density measurements over time; construed such that over the combined time, the passage of 20 UV tubes, each with a density of 257 mJ/cm2, will eventually surpass the 4000 mJ/cm2 taught by Duthie)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Snowball to include, wherein the first dose of UV light and the second dose of UV light together deliver at least 500 mJ/cm2 of UV light, in view of the teachings of Duthie, by increasing the lamp wattage, as taught by Duthie, for the UV light sources, as taught by Snowball, over time in order to provide more ultraviolet light energy, decreasing the overall amount of time required to sanitize the fluid (Duthie, paras 0052 and 0086).
Regarding claim 22, Snowball teaches wherein the first dose of UV light delivers at least 250 mJ/cm2 (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2), and wherein the second dose of UV light delivers at least 250 mJ/cm2 (experiment 1, Table 1, Dose of “257” mJ/cm2; the dose is a “density” measurement based on the circular cross section of the duct; construed such that the UV powder density is 257 mJ/cm2 for all of twenty of the UV tubes/ducts).
Regarding claim 23, Snowball teaches wherein the first mixer and the second mixer (annotated in fig. 7 above) are each static mixers (“baffles,” para 0162; construed as “static” because the baffles do not move but instead have formations that control the fluid flow, paras 0143-0147).
Regarding claim 24, Snowball teaches wherein the first UV chamber (left duct 100, fig. 7) and the second UV chamber (right duct 100, fig. 7) each comprise at least one UV lamp (UV radiation 104, fig. 7; “elongate lamp disposed inside a tube,” para 0036; construed such that each of the ducts has an elongated lamp).
Regarding claim 25, Snowball does not explicitly disclose in the fig. 7 embodiment, wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of at least 50 cP.
However, in a different embodiment, Snowball teaches wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of at least 50 cP (“edible oil has a viscosity of at least 30 cP (mPa·s) and less than 70 cP (mPa·s),” para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 7 and experiment 1 in Table 1, to include, wherein the viscous fluid has a viscosity of at least 50 cP, in view of the teachings of another embodiment, by using edible oil in the process module, as taught by Snowball, in order to use a viscosity fluid of less than 200 centipoise, which ensures a specific fluid flow between the baffles, providing effective mixing of fluids without modifying their texture or consistency in a manner that is noticeable to consumers (para 0008) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 6 and 12, and specifically does not show “wherein system is configured to treat the viscous fluid to form a treated fluid having an acrylamide content of less than 2 µg/kg, a total furan content of less than 30 µg/kg, a hydroxy methyl furan content of less than 5 ppm, and a 4-methylimidazole content of less than 0.0100 mg/kg, and a furfuryl alcohol content of less than 0.5 mg/kg.”
The closest prior art of record (Mutilangi / US 6312808) teaches “sodium hexametaphosphate,” but does not explicitly disclose any of the ranges required in the claims. Although one might argue that achieving these amounts might be “obvious to try,” the Applicant clearly describes how the claimed system is able to achieve these claimed concentrations as a result of UV treatment in the Specification (see paras 0062-0068 and Tables 5 and 6 of the Applicant’s Specification) in a manner that is an improvement over the prior art (see paragraphs 0069-0070). Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 27 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
III. Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a)
Page 8 of the arguments appears to suggest that the following limitation in claim 24 is not a negative limitation: “wherein the first UV chamber and the second UV chamber each comprise only one UV lamp.” The Applicant cites as evidence the Specification, which discloses “at least one UV lamp.”
If the Applicant intends for claim 24 to not be a negative limitation, then recommend deleting “only” from claim 24. Claim 24 is being interpreted as a negative limitation based on the term “only,” for reasons provided in the 35 USC 112a rejection above.
Page 8 of the arguments then provides a contradictory argument stating that claim 24 can be “constructed as a negative limitation.” Respectfully submit that it is not clear what position the Applicant is taking—does claim 24 contain a negative limitation or does claim 24 not contain a negative limitation?
On pages 8-9, the Applicant appears to argue that based on the determination in Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the disclosure in the Specification that “each UV chamber includes at least one UV lamp” is sufficient basis for claiming “only one UV lamp.”
The examiner reviewed this determination and disagrees that this disclosure is sufficient basis for a negative claim limitation. In Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., it was determined that the Specification had sufficient basis for a negative limitation because the Specification disclosed excluding other elements from the claimed product. The examiner reviewed the Applicant’s Specification but could not find any support to make a similar determination. The “lamps” are only mentioned a couple times in the Applicant’s Specification. If the Specification had disclosed that there was “at most one UV lamp” in each UV chamber, then the examiner would agree with the Applicant. However, the disclosure that there is “at least one UV lamp” does not provide adequate support for “only one UV lamp” because silence is not sufficient to support a negative claim limitation.
IV. Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
Page 9 of the arguments appears to take a similar waffling position as that provided in the previous section, i.e., the Applicant argues that the limitation in claim 24 could be a negative limitation and if it is a negative limitation, then it is proper. Respectfully submit that the Applicant’s indefinite argument reinforces the rejection based on indefiniteness, because the Applicant does not attempt to clearly define or clarify the scope of the claim in their arguments.
V. Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Page 10-11 of the arguments refer to a previous fig. 7 that was annotated in the last Office action. Based on this annotated fig. 7, the Applicant argues that Snowball does not teach that the construed second mixer is coupled to the construed first and second UV chambers using pipes.
The examiner disagrees. In fig. 1, Snowball teaches a reaction chamber 1 that has a housing, which can be construed as a pipe. Snowball teaches that directly within the housing, there is a gap 12 between the housing an inside tubular sleeve 11. Snowball teaches that fluid flows into and out of the gap 12 (paragraph 0137). Thus, respectfully submit that Snowball can cover the claimed pipes.
The examiner further submits that Snowball’s invention shows more granularity than what is disclosed in the Applicant’s Specification. Figures 1 and 2 of the Applicant’s drawings show generic arrows that are used for the claimed pipes. In contrast, Snowball shows that the housing of the chamber is tubular. Whereas the pipe taught by Snowball is cylindrical, the pipe disclosed in the Instant Application can be any shape. Thus, Snowball’s invention has more specificity than what is disclosed in the Applicant’s invention. As a result, it is unclear how the Applicant intends to distinguish their invention over that taught by Snowball, based on the pipe feature.
Page 11 of the arguments state that the examiner is defining a “chamber” as having the same meaning as a room. The examiner agrees with the Applicant.
The Applicant then states that the examiner is not understanding the meaning of the claimed “chamber” based on what the Applicant discloses in their Specification. However, the Applicant does not refer to the Specification to explain how the claimed “chamber” should be defined and understood. The examiner reviewed the Applicant’s Specification but could not find a special definition for the claimed “chamber.” As a result, the examiner did not find this argument persuasive. The Applicant’s argument would have been more persuasive had the Specification been referenced to explain how the Applicant’s “chamber” differs from that taught by Snowball.
Page 12 of the arguments states that the examiner is not treating the claimed mixers and chambers as separate units. The examiner disagrees. Instead, in the rejection, the mixers and chambers are treated as separate units that are mapped to different parts of fig. 7, as annotated above.
The remaining arguments on pages 12-14 are conclusory without any evidence being cited or provided.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veenstra et al. (US-7018544-B2) teach a fluid treatment device with pipes.
Lu et al. (US-11312642-B2) teach a fluid sterilizing device.
Griffis et al. (US-20230018120-A1) teach electrochemical generation of hydrogen peroxide using pipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights