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 30 June 2026 is acknowledged. It is understood that claims 1, 17 and 51 have been amended, and claims 3-12 have been cancelled by Applicant. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 13-17, 19, and 51 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 17, and 51 over Nonnenmacher in view of Moon have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that neither Nonnenmacher nor Moon suggest the newly added limitation requiring baffles. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Soper’s, Flow Control Baffles, which was relied upon to reject the limitation requiring baffles in the now cancelled claim 5.
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, 13-17, 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) and Sopers, Flow Control Baffles.
Regarding Claim 1, Nonnenmacher, Moon, and Soper’s 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, Moon, and Soper’s 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).
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach wherein the ozone flow restrictor comprises a plurality of baffles arranged in a vertical stack. However, Sopers discloses a flow restrictor that comprises a plurality of baffles arranged in a vertical stack (see Pg. 2, the bottom-left most figure titled “Proper system: baffles help eliminate dead zones (recirculation) and short circuiting”), wherein the baffles are configured to force fluid to travel in a partially horizontal path (see Pg. 2, the bottom-left most figure, which clearly shows the fluid path travelling horizontally).
Nonnenmacher and Sopers are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of water tank purification systems. 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 baffles of Sopers because Sopers offers the motivation of eliminating dead zones, reducing water age, increasing contact time, and reducing operation and chemical costs (see Pg. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Nonnenmacher, Moon, and Soper’s 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, Moon, and Soper’s 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, Moon, and Soper’s 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, Moon, and Soper’s 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, Moon, and Soper’s 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).
Nonnenmacher does not explicitly teach physically redirecting upwardly rising bubbles from a vertical path into a horizontal path or a rotational path through the water to increase a dissolution time of the ozone in the water. However, this would be the natural effect when incorporating the baffles of Sopers as described in the claim 1 rejection.
Regarding Claim 19, Nonnenmacher, Moon, and Soper’s 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), Sopers, Flow Control Baffles, and Sham et al. (US-20040028572-A1), hereinafter “Sham”.
Regarding Claim 2, Nonnenmacher, Moon, and Soper’s 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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