Detailed Notice
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/2/6/2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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. The instant claim requires “wherein the reactor is coiled around the support body or the reactor is enclosed by the support body” although the previous appositive also states “wherein the (tubular) reactor is coiled around the support body”. It is unclear whether both conditions are required or either condition is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution it is understood that the reactor must be at least coiled around the support body. Attention is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker-Milburn (WO 2018011550 A1) in view of Morgan (US 20160017266 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 13, Booker-Milburn teaches a photoreactor assembly provided in Fig. 1 and 2 of Brooker-Milburn below comprising:
a photoreactor (#2) in which are housed;
a plurality of reactor tubes (#28 bearing to an inner concentric ring of a plurality of reactor tubes; #30 bearing to an outer concentric ring of a plurality of reactor tubes), wherein the reactor tubes are constructed of quartz and oriented about a lamp (#42 in Fig. 5) in order to receive UV radiation (Pg. 11, Lines 10-23); and wherein,
The lamp may be a “LED lamps”, understood to be inclusive of a plurality of light sources comprising a plurality of LEDs (Pg. 9, Lines 8-15); and,
A coolant system comprising a coolant jacket with a coolant water inlet (#10, Fig. 5) which flows into the inner space of the outer tube (#4, Fig. 1, 2. And 5.) such that the coolant water fully surrounds the reactor tubes, thus being in thermal contact with the reactor and wherein the reactor is configured within the coolant channel (Pg. 14, Lines 18-22); and,
A support body made of quartz which is transparent to light in order to house the light source(s) and act as a transparent partition between the cooling fluid and the lamp source(s) (#20, Fig. 2; Pg. 13, Lines 3-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Booker-Milburn does not teach that the tubular reactor is in a coiled tubular arrangement comprising a plurality of windings.
Morgan teaches a photobioreactor in the same field of endeavor (abstract).
Morgan teaches a photobioreactor wherein a helical reactor tube is positioned about a lamp source (Fig. 1, #104; [0031]). Morgan teaches that the use of a helical reactor tube is advantaged because it provides a higher surface to volume ratio, thereby increasing the incident light energy input per unit volume into the reactor tube [0030].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base device of a photoreactor comprising a reactor tube, a plurality of light sources, and a coolant liquid as per Booker-Milburn was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the helical shaped tube, as per Morgan, in order that one would arrive at a photoreactor system with an improved incident light per unit volume capture within the reactor tube to improve the efficiency of the photochemical processes being driven.
Regarding Claim 2 and 3, prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the helical reactor structure of Booker-Milburn in view of Morgan would be coiled about the inner tube (#20, Fig. 2 of Booker-Milburn; Pg. 12, Lines 19-29) of the Booker-Milburn reactor, as the helical reactor tube of Morgan was being used in substitution for the reactor tubes (#28 and #30, Fig. 2 of Booker-Milburn). It is understood that as both the helical reactor tube and the support body are positioned within the same cooling medium (thus the support body therefore comprises one of the fluid transport channels) that they are therefore in thermal contact with one another.
Regarding Claim 4, Booker-Milburn teaches that the inner tube (#20, Fig. 2 of Booker-Milburn; Pg. 12, Lines 19-29) is hollow within as it houses the lamp(s) and as can been seen in Fig. 2 it has an inner body wall and an outer body wall.
Regarding Claim 5, Booker-Milburn further teaches that a fan may be used to direct cooling flow over the lamp during operation (Pg. 13, Lines 9-16). The instant applications specification provides support that the air flow is also a cooling fluid which is the same as the instant invention (Pg. 41 of instant spec, Lines 12-19); therefore it is understood that Booker-Milburn teaches an second cooling fluid system comprising the fan within the interior of the inner tube (#20, Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 6, the depicted image of the inner tube (#20, Fig. 2) of Booker-Milburn shows a hollow tube which is taught to include a fan and a lamp source. It is understood that at least 50% of the volume within the inner tube comprises the coolant air used to cool the lamp during operation (Pg. 10, Lines 7-14).
Regarding Claim 7, the courts have held broadly that merely changing the proportion or size does not sufficiently distinguish above the prior art to afford patentability (MPEP 2144.05 IV A). In the instant case, Booker-Milburn teaches an inner tube, that being a support body, with an inner and an outer surface and being hollow (#20, Fig. 2) which is substantially circular and comprises an inner support body surface diameter which is smaller than the outer support body diameter.
Regarding Claim 8-10, Booker-Milburn teaches that the upper end cap (#8, Fig. 1) comprises a lamp receiving aperture (#18, Fig. 1), understood to be a lamp support body, where the lamp may be a “LED lamps”, understood to be inclusive of a plurality of light sources comprising a plurality of LEDs (Pg. 9, Lines 8-15), and further wherein a fan may be mounted over the lamp receiving aperture to direct cooling gas flow over the lamp while in operation (Pg. 10, Lines 7-14). Barring a demonstration of criticality, it is understood that the fan of Booker-Milburn is an equivalent structure to the ventilator blade type fan.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker-Milburn (WO 2018011550 A1) in view of Morgan (US 20160017266 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khatiwada (WO 2020146813 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Booker-Milburn teaches a lamp may be a “LED lamps”, understood to be inclusive of a plurality of light sources comprising a plurality of LEDs (Pg. 9, Lines 8-15), which is understood be composed of matter and is therefore thermally conductive. Booker-Milburn further teaches that the photoreactor may further comprise a fan used to provide cooling fluid (air), understood to be a second fluid transporting device with respect to the primary liquid coolant system for cooling the reactor tubes (Pg. 14, Lines 18-22), to the lamp source(s) in order to cool them down (Pg. 10, Lines 7-14). Booker-Milburn teaches that the outer metal tube comprises a reflective material (stainless steel or aluminum) (Pg. 7, Lines 20-22).
However, Booker-Milburn does not teach that the light sources comprises a reflective surface for reflecting the light source radiation.
Khatiwada teaches a photoreactor system using a light source within a housing and a photocatalyst on a catalyst support (abstract).
Khatiwada teaches a photoreactor comprising a series of reactor tubes (#110, Fig. 2a) arranged concentrically about a central column comprising a plurality of light source LEDs (#220, Fig. 2a) mounted on the surface [0043]. Khatiwada states that the light source arrangement within Fig. 2a may comprise embodiments shown in Figures 9-18 [0043]. Khatiwada further that the LED modules are provided with a reflective coating to back-reflect any wayward light [0142]. Khatiwada teaches a light source arrangement a first and second plurality of light sources (#2034 and #2036, Fig. 17C) are mounted on the outer housing wall and inner mounting pillar (#2026) [0125-0126]. Khatiwada teaches that the cooling fluid flowing through the space between the outer housing wall and inner mounting pillar, and also a cooling fluid pumped through the inner mounting pillar provide advantageous cooling to the LED devices [0126]. Khatiwada teaches that this arrangement of the LED devices provides advantageous cooling to the LEDs during operation [0126].
Prior the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base device of a photoreactor as per Booker-Milburn in view of Morgan was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the light source arrangement mounted on an inner mounting pillar and an outer housing wall which are further arranged with a reflective coating, as per Khatiwada, in order that one would arrive at a photoreactor system comprising a first cooling fluid in the space between the outer housing wall and the inner mounting pillar and a second cooling fluid within the inner mounting pillar such that photoreactor would have improved cooling capacity for the LED sources during operation.
Regarding Claim 12, Booker-Milburn in view of Morgan teaches to Claim 1, comprising a helically coiled tubular reactor with reactor walls and LED sources for provided light.
However, Booker-Milburn does not teach that the light source arrangement defines a polygon.
Khatiwada teaches that square LED modules (2010a/b and 2012a/b) depicted in Fig. 17B may comprise various geometric shapes including a rectangular or hexagonal shape [0123].
Prior to the filing of the of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the various shapes of the LED modules as per Khatiwada could be incorporated into the photoreactor system comprising LED modules as per Booker-Milburn in view of Morgan as a matter of simple substitution. Further, barring a demonstration of criticality or a persuasive demonstration of evidence, the courts have held that the configured shape of a component or device is a matter of choice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.05 IV B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights