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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. It is understood that claims 1 and 17 have been amended, claim 51 has been added, and claims 18 and 21 have been cancelled by Applicant. Accordingly, Claims 1-17, 19, and 51 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 24 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 17 under Nonnenmacher have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Moon (US-5154895-A).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12-17, 19, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-20110277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose an ozone mitigation system (the copper oxide acts as a catalyst for degrading the ozone; see [0048] and ozone gas also escapes; see [0052]) for a toilet (see [0045]), the ozone mitigation system comprising: an ozone generator (see [0047]) in communication with a toilet tank (an ozone generator 111 connected to the cistern 109; see [0066]); an air source connected to the ozone generator (The carrier gas for the ozone is aerial oxygen; see [0049]); a power source connected to the ozone generator (… includes an ozone generator connected to the cistern. This requires energy for operation which can be taken from a power supply; see [0043]); and an ozone flow restrictor (the pipe reactor contains a filling; see [0069]) operable inside of the toilet tank (a pipe reactor 127… is situated in the cistern; see [0065]) and configured to modify a flow of ozone from the ozone generator through the toilet tank (The flow rate of the ozone in the filling material area 145 is reduced by the filling materials; see [0071]), as the ozone is dissolved in the water of the toilet tank (this means that the ozone has sufficient time to dissolve in the water with which it flows through the pipe reactor; see [0071]). Examiner notes that two different embodiments are cited in this rejection. However, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose that the technology of both embodiments is the same except for the fact that the second embodiment has a pipe reactor in place of the immersion pipe of the first embodiment.
Regarding the limitation claiming that the flow of ozone is modified as the ozone is dissolved in the water of the toilet tank, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach the ozone generator being submerged in the toilet tank below a fill water level. However, Moon discloses an ozone generator submerged in water (ozone generator in liquids… an apparatus for generating ozone by supplying a voltage to the electrodes fixed opposite to each other and submerged in liquids; see Col. 1 Lines 6-11).
Nonnenmacher and Moon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnenmacher by incorporating the teachings of Moon and submerging the ozone generator. Doing so would eliminate the need of auxiliary devices such as a blower or a diffuser; see Col. 1 Line 67 – Col. 2 Line 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the ozone flow restrictor comprises: at least one obstacle (filling can be of balls or hollow or other pieces; see [0069]) arranged in a path of the flow of ozone (Gas bubbles are formed at the gas frit 128 which contain ozone and which rise in the pipe reactor 127. To reduce the flow rate, the pipe reactor 127 contains a filling; see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 3, wherein the at least one obstacle includes a bead column (glass balls; see [0069] and Fig. 2) or a ring column (Raschig rings; see [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the ozone flow restrictor comprises: an extended water tube for extending a path of the flow of ozone (The pipe reactor 227 shows a coil in the form of a hose reel which can be supplied in various lengths; see [0077] and the preferred coil was, however, one with a length of approximately 10 m because it permitted the longest possible residence time for the water see [0078] and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the ozone flow restrictor comprises: a fill valve assembly (water input valve and ozone converter; see [0075]) configured to draw ozone from the ozone generator and expel the ozone to the toilet tank at a predetermined position (venturi injector and ozone converter; see [0075]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 13, wherein the fill valve assembly comprises: a water inlet channel (water input valve; see [0046]) connected to a line supply of water (the water input valve 31 displayed in the embodiment as a manual valve regulating the water supply; see [0046]); and an ozone inlet channel connected to the water inlet via a venturi opening (The ozone generator 211 contains a Venturi injector 212, which achieves a high degree of efficiency for dissolving the ozone in the water coming from the water supply; see [0075]).
Regarding Claim 15, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 13, further comprising: a filter (ozone converter; see [0017]) configured to slow the flow of ozone from the fill valve assembly (the ozone converter has the task of partially converting the ozone dissolved in water; see [0018]). Converting the ozone would effectively limit or slow the flow of ozone, thereby acting as a filter configured to slow the ozone flow.
Regarding Claim 16, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 13, wherein the predetermined position is at a bottom of the toilet tank (see Fig. 1 Part 27).
Regarding Claim 17, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose a method for ozone mitigation in a toilet tank, the method comprising: providing air to an ozone generator (The carrier gas for the ozone is aerial oxygen so that the gas is always a mixture of ozone and aerial oxygen; see [0049]): providing power to the ozone generator (see [0043]); generating, at the ozone generator, ozone in a toilet tank in response to the air or the power(enriched with gaseous ozone in ozone generator; see [0047] and [0043]); and restricting a flow of the ozone in the toilet tank (the flow rate of the ozone in the filling material area 145 is reduced by the filling materials; see [0071]) as the ozone is dissolved in the water of the toilet tank (this means that the ozone has sufficient time to dissolve in the water with which it flows through the pipe reactor; see [0071]).
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach the ozone generator being submerged in the toilet tank below a fill water level. However, Moon discloses an ozone generator submerged in water (ozone generator in liquids… an apparatus for generating ozone by supplying a voltage to the electrodes fixed opposite to each other and submerged in liquids; see Col. 1 Lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 19, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: providing power to an ozone flow restrictor to restrict the flow of the ozone in the toilet tank (see [0075]). Specifically, the ozone generator is powered by a power supply (see [0043]). The ozone generator contains a venturi injector to inject the ozone into the water. Because the injector is part of the generator, it logically follows that this is powered by the power supply. When the venturi injector closes (see [0075]), the flow of ozone inherently stops or is restricted. Therefore, the power supply effectively supplies power to a flow restrictor causing it to restrict the flow of ozone.
Regarding Claim 51, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of claim 51 follows the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-2011277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A) and Sham et al. (US-20040028572-A1), hereinafter “Sham”.
Regarding Claim 2, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach a corona charger configured to accumulate electric charge from the power source and apply the electric charge to air from the air source. However, there are a limited number of methods used in ozone generators to generate ozone, and corona discharge is a very well-known and used method in ozone generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried to use a corona discharge in the ozone generator. Doing so produces a substantially higher ozone concentration compared to other methods (see Sham [0006]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-2011277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A) and Soper’s, Flow Control Baffles.
Regarding Claim 5, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 3.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach at least one of the obstacles including one or more baffles. However, there is a finite number of options as to what can be used as an obstacle for fluid flow restriction, and baffles are commonly used and well understood in the art, which is exemplified by Soper’s. Using a baffle would increase contact time (see Soper’s).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-2011277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A) and Watanabe (JP-2015062866-A).
Regarding Claim 6, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 3.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly disclose rotating elements. However, Watanabe teaches at least one obstacle including a rotating element (guide member rotatably attached; see [0047]).
Nonnenmacher and Watanabe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a rotating element as an obstacle for ozone flow restriction. Doing so can help control the liquid level (see Watanabe [0047]).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-2011277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A) and Ophardt (US 20110108410 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach an impellor. However, Ophardt discloses an impellor configured to propel ozone through the toilet tank using one or more fins (see [0084]). Specifically, Ophardt teaches a pump containing an impeller. Impellers have blades or fins by nature, and Ophardt teaches the impeller as being moveable (see [0090]), indicating that it can be disposed in a system where desired.
Nonnenmacher and Ophardt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone generators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nonnenmacher by incorporating the teachings of Ophardt and providing an impellor. Doing so would successively draw liquid from the reservoir into the liquid compartment and discharge liquid from the liquid compartment (see Ophardt [0090]).
Regarding Claim 8, the flow of one stream will always be at an angle between 0o-360o to the flow of another stream. Additionally, as mentioned above, Ophardt disclosed the impellor as being movable (see [0090]). Therefore, it is capable of propelling the ozone stream in a multitude of directions.
Regarding Claim 9, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 1, wherein a recirculation path for the ozone within the toilet tank is created (see [0080]). Specifically, Nonnenmacher and Moon together disclose the benefits of a swirling effect in regards to complete mixing. Figure 8 of the instant application shows the recirculation path as circulating or swirling flow in one space. The swirling flow taught by Nonnemacher is analogous to that of the instant application.
Nonnemacher does not explicitly teach a pump configured to create this path. However, Ophardt does disclose a pump configured to move water/ozone (see [0084]). Including a pump enables fluid to be dispensed (see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nonnemacher and Ophardt together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 9. Nonnemacher further discloses the recirculation path being substantially vertical (see Fig. 3 Part 227).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonnenmacher (US-2011277227-A1) in view of Moon (US-5154895-A), Ophardt (US 20110108410 A1) and Coyle (US-4300924-A).
Regarding Claim 11, Nonnenmacher and Ophardt together disclose the ozone mitigation system of claim 9.
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach a chamber that extends both above and below the water level. However, Coyle discloses a chamber enclosing a space above a predetermined water level in a tank, wherein the mixing path passes through the chamber (a vertical cylindrical mixing tube open at its opposite ends and extending above and below water level; see Abstract).
Nonnenmacher and Coyle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treatment of gases within a fluid medium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nonnenmacher by incorporating the teachings of Coyle and providing a mixing chamber that extends above the water level. Doing so slows the gas to further expand at the upper end of the chamber (see Coyle, Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights