DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims Objected to: 1-6
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-2 and 4 and the addition of new claim 6 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 FEBRUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art no longer teaches the newly added limitations of claim 1 and is therefore allowable (Arguments filed 02 FEBRUARY 2026, Pages 5-8).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner agrees with Applicant, especially regarding the substantially laminar flow limitation that has been added. More detail can be seen in the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, “the fluid flow and particle beam” in line 6 of the claim should read “the fluid flow and the particle beam”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the treated fluid flow" in line 19 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to the instant application appears to be Trump (US Patent No. 3901807 A) hereinafter Trump, Rela et al (P.R. Rela, M.H.O. Sampa, C.L. Duarte, F.E. Costa, V. Sciani, Development of an up-flow irradiation device for electron beam wastewater treatment, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, Volume 57, Issues 3–6, 2000, Pages 657-660, ISSN 0969-806X, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-806X(99)00458-2) hereinafter Rela, Patel et al (US Patent Application No. 20080286424 A1) hereinafter Patel, Zapit Technology (US Patent No. 5457269 A) hereinafter Zapit, Accomando et al (US Patent Application No. 20140339147 A1) hereinafter Accomando, Schonberg et al (US Patent No. 5357291 A) hereinafter Schonberg, Han et al (US Patent Application No. 20110240565 A1) hereinafter Han, Gehringer et al (European Patent Application No. EP 0931765 A2) hereinafter Gehringer, Lashin et al (Russian Patent No. RU 2076001 C1) hereinafter Lashin, and Lyons et al (US Patent No. 5530255 A) hereinafter Lyons.
Trump teaches the use of high energy electron irradiation to treat wastewater and drinking water with filters prior to the irradiation and flow control devices and acknowledgement that variability in sewage and wastewater impacts the required amount of electron radiation necessary to treat the wastewater.
Rela teaches the use of a vertical up-flow irradiation device for water treatment.
Patel teaches that dosage of radiation can be precisely controlled with the flow rate of the material flowing through a device exposing material to radiation by means of a controller.
Zapit teaches that it is known to focus an electron beam via electrostatic or electromagnetic means, such as an electromagnetic coil, because beam size establishes power density at the vacuum window and secondary window and allows the tailoring of the electron beam output to the size of the reaction chamber.
Accomando teaches the use of radiation in combination with other filters to produce treated water into a bladder that can be carried around in a backpack where the water is filtered by gravity. The bladder is described as dispensing water, and does not explicitly teach a spigot, but would closely enough approximate the dispensing method as to make it obvious.
There are many different reaction chamber sizes and shapes, and so the optimization of the diameter versus the length of the reaction chamber may also be obvious.
However, Schonberg, Gehringer, Lashin, and Lyons all teach explicit advantages of utilizing turbulent flow within the radiation chamber with Gehringer and Lashin using vertical reactors. Han teaches the spraying of fluid to form droplets and increase the surface area of water to be treated. The remaining prior art is silent to the rough or smooth nature of the fluid flow, mostly teaching the correlation of flow to dosage.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to use a laminar flow in a vertical particle beam water purification method as the prior art does not teach laminar flow or teaches away from the use of laminar flow.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777