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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “52” has been used to designate both a blade and the housing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “30”, “51”, and “55”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, and F1 in the reply filed on 22 July 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-12, 19, 22, 27, 29, 32, and 51-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III and Species A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, and F2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 July 2025. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The claim limitation “decreasing and eliminati ng means ” as stated in claim 1 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure of the functional limitation is further defined by the application specification to be any structure capable of decomposing, inactivating, or sterilizing a subject (paragraph [0013]). The claim limitation “flow generating means” as stated in claim 2 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure of the functional limitation is further defined by the application specification to be a fan or blower structure (paragraph [0015]). The claim limitation “flow path defining means” as stated in claim 14 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure of the function al limitation is further defined by the application specification to be composed of guide plates and the inner surface of the housing (paragraph [0046]). The claim limitation “an electric field generating means” as stated in claim 37 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure of the functional limitation is further defined by the application specification to be a pair of positive and negative electrodes that generate an electric field (paragraph [0135]). The claim limitation “a heating means” as stated in claim 37 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure of the functional limitation is further defined by the application specification to be any structure capable of heating the inside of the flow path (paragraph [00135]). The claim limitation “an ion generating means” as stated in claim 37 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The structure of the functional limitation is not further defined the application specification, drawings, or subsequent claims. For the purpose of this examination, “an ion generating means” is interpreted to mean any structure capable of producing sterilizing ions. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10, 13-18, 20-21, 23-26, 28, 30-31, 33-50, and 56-60 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. The term s “ high order ” and “highly amplify” in claim 1 are relative term s which renders the claim indefinite. The term s “ high order ” “highly amplify” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the required degree of reflectivity indefinite , and it is unclear what material properties would meet the requirements of the claim. For the purpose of this examination, the terms have been taken to mean a surface which is capable of multiple reflections to increase the effect of the ultraviolet light . Claims 2-10, 13-18, 20-21, 23-26, 28, 30-31, 33-50, and 56-60 are rejected based on their dependence on claim 1. Regarding claim 37, Claim limitation “ion generating means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description in the application specification, drawings, or subsequent claims to further define the structure of the ion generating means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 14-15, 20, 23, 25-26, 28, 31, 35-36, 38, 40-42, and 4 7 -50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Nelson ( US 20020098109 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1, Nelson teaches a toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device ( apparatus for removing contaminants from air, abstract ) comprising: a flow path that communicates a suction portion configured to suck a fluid and a discharge portion configured to discharge the fluid with each other ( air enters system through intake, traverses through chamber, and flows out through exhaust vent, paragraph [0090]), a decreasing and eliminating means including an ultraviolet light source for decomposing and/or inactivating and/or sterilizing a subject contained in the fluid flowing down in the flow path ( airstream exposed to germicidal UV radiation to destroy bacteria, abstract ); and a reflective surface that reflects ultraviolet rat from the decreasing and eliminating means towards the flow path ( sufficient reflective properties to reflect radiation in chamber, paragraph [0116] ) , wherein the reflective surface reflects, with a high order, an ultraviolet ray emitted from the ultraviolet light source toward the flow path at multiple times to highly amplify a density of ultraviolet rays in the flow path ( increases radiation intensity to enhance radiation effect, paragraph [0116] ). Regarding claim 2, Nelson teaches a flow generating means for generating a flow of the fluid along the flow path form a side of the suction portion toward a side of the discharge portion ( fan draws air from surrounding environment into the system and directs it through the chamber, paragraph [0082] ). Regarding claim 3, Nelson teaches wherein the flow generating means has at least one or more fan structures selected from an axial-flow fan, a centrifugal fan, a mixed flow fan, a centrifugal axial-flow fan, a vortex-flow fan, or tangential fan ( barrel or other type or fan or blower, paragraph [0114], and Figure 31 conventional axial flow fan “318”). Regarding claim 4, Nelson teaches wherein the flow generating means is disposed in a vicinity of the suction portion and/or the discharge portion (Figure 11 fan “22” disposed in the inlet opening of recess “127”). Regarding claim 5, Nelson teaches wherein the flow generating means has one or more fan structures, and wherein the one or more fan structures are fixed to a single rotating shaft (Figure 31 fan “318” shown attached to a shaft). Regarding claim 6, Nelson teaches wherein the flow generating means comprises one or more fan structures, a rotating shaft, and a diving motor ( Figure 31 fan “318” shown attached to a shaft and drive motor). Regarding claim 8, Nelson teaches wherein the flow path reciprocates in a predetermined direction (baffles forming a tortuous air flow path, paragraph [0040]). Regarding claim 9, Nelson teaches wherein the predetermined direction is a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction ( Figure 3 walls “20” and “29” creating a vertical tortuous flow path). Regarding claim 10, Nelson teaches wherein the predetermined direction is a direction parallel to the ultraviolet rays emitted by the decreasing and eliminating means (Figure 3 ultraviolet light “14” extends vertically through the chambers “8” and “16”). Regarding claim 14, Nelson teaches wherein the flow path is configured with a flow path defining means (Figure 3 walls “20” and “29” creating a vertical tortuous flow path). Regarding claim 15, Nelson teaches wherein the flow path defining means is configured to comprise any one or more of a portion of the decreasing and eliminating means, a portion of an inner surface of a housing, and a guide plate (Figure 3 walls “20” and “29” creating a vertical tortuous flow path). Regarding claim 20, Nelson teaches wherein the decreasing and eliminating means is integrally configured with the flow path ( Figures 16 and 17 ultraviolet light sources “14” integrated into chamber walls “150”, “152”, and “162”). Regarding claim 23, Nelson teaches wherein a flow velocity of a fluid discharged by the discharge portion is slower than a flow velocity of a fluid sucked by the suction portion (germicidal chamber reduces through-flow velocity prior to air being exhausted, paragraph [0104]). Regarding claim 25, Nelson teaches a housing having an approximately tubular shape and elongated shape, and wherein one of the suction portion and the discharge portion is disposed on one end side with respect to a longitudinal central portion of the housing, and the other one is disposed on an other end portion with respect to the longitudinal central portion of the housing (Figure 1 cylindrical housing “5” with an intake “7” at one end and an exhaust vent “28” at the other end). Regarding claim 26, Nelson teaches wherein the suction portion performs high-speed suction, and wherein the discharge portion performs low-speed discharge (germicidal chamber reduces through-flow velocity prior to air being exhausted, paragraph [0104], and system configured to control air through-flow velocity, abstract). Regarding claim 28, Nelson teaches wherein the suction portion comprises a suction port for sucking the fluid from a wide area (air from a surrounding environment is drawn into the system through air intake, paragraph [0063]). Regarding claim 31, Nelson teaches wherein the discharge portion comprises a discharge port for discharging the fluid to a wide area ( return purified air to a surrounding environment, paragraph [0020]). Regarding claim 35, Nelson teaches wherein the flow path is formed of an ultraviolet transmitting material (germicidal chamber includes a radiation transparent floor, paragraph [0131]). Regarding claim 36, Nelson teaches wherein the reflective surface is disposed on a portion facing the ultraviolet light source with the flow path interposed therebetween ( chamber structures are constructed of metallic sheets that may reflect the ultraviolet energy radiation, paragraph [0123]). Regarding claim 38, Nelson teaches wherein a filter for collecting foreign matters contained in the fluid is proved in the flow path (filter disposed to remove particulate or other contaminants from air stream, paragraph [0104]). Regarding claim 40, Nelson teaches a partition configured to partition a space around the device (Figure 12 sleeve “112” over cartridge containing germicidal chamber). Regarding claim 41, Nelson teaches wherein the toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device is embedded in separate equipment (Figure 26 germicidal system “2H” connected to pipeline “204”). Regarding claim 42, Nelson teaches wherein the separate equipment is a roof, seat backrest, seat headrest, concrete panel, air conditioner, table, desk, chair, elevator, plant, septic tank, or pipe (Figure 26 germicidal system “2H” connected to pipeline “204”). Regarding claim 47, Nelson teaches wherein the suction portion and the discharge portion are disposed in plurality intermittently along a circumference direction (Figure 3 multiple intake openings “7” and Figure 2 multiple exhaust vent openings “28”), wherein the flow path is partitioned n to a plurality of sections in the circumferential direction and communicates the suction portion and the discharge portion directed in the same direction with each other (Figure 9 flow path “10” separated into parallel paths by walls “20”, “25”, “27”, and “ 29”), and wherein the fluid sucked from one side by the suction portion is discharged toward the one side through the discharge portion (Figure 9 flow path “10” does not cross and fluid will exit on the same side of the center axis it entered on). Regarding claim 48, Nelson teaches wherein the decreasing and eliminated means is disposed on a portion surrounded by the flow path (Figure 3 UV light source “14” disposed in the middle of all flow paths). Regarding claim 49, Nelson teaches wherein the fluid is a gas, liquid, and/or powder (producing purified air, abstract). Regarding claim 50, Nelson teaches wherein the subject is bacteria, viruses, and/or harmful molecules (destroy bacteria, abstract). Claims 1-2, 7, 16-18, 21, 30, 33-34, 37, and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Livchak (US 20130291735 A1). Regarding claim 1, Livchak teaches a toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device (device for air purification, abstract) comprising: a flow path that communicates a suction portion configured to suck a fluid and a discharge portion configured to discharge the fluid with each other (Figure 3 room air “314” flows through flow unit “312” creating flow “316” through discharge vent “318”) ; a decreasing and eliminating means including an ultraviolet light source for decomposing and inactivating and/or sterilizing a subject contained in the fluid flowing down in the flow path (UV light purifies air stream inside system, abstract) ; and a reflective surface that reflects ultraviolet ray from the decreasing and eliminating means toward the flow path, wherein the reflective surface reflects, with high order, an ultraviolet ray emitted from the ultraviolet light source toward the flow path at multiple times, to highly amplify a density of ultraviolet rays in the flow path (UV reflective light baffles surround UV light source, paragraph [0009], and multiple reflections are necessary, paragraph [0065]) . Regarding claim 2, Livchak teaches a flow generating means for generating a flow of the fluid along the flow path from a side of the suction portion toward a side of the discharge portion (air handling system employs a fan that blows the primary ventilation air into the system, paragraph [0053]). Regarding claim 7, Livchak teaches at least one sensor of a temperature sensor, a humidity senor, a human sensor, or a pollution sensor (motion or occupancy sensor to detect the presence of a person in the room, paragraph [0049], wherein the flow generated by the flow generating means is controlled based on detection by the at least one sensor (fan may be turned off under selected conditions, paragraph [0075], system automatically shuts off device in the presence of a body, paragraph [0049]). Regarding claim 16, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet light source comprises an ultraviolet lamp or an ultraviolet light-emitting diode (LED) (UV source is a light-emitting diode or gas-discharge tube lamp, paragraph [0039]). Regarding claim 17, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet lamp is formed as a cylindrical tube (lamp is elongate such as the shape of a long gas discharge tube, paragraph [0041]). Regarding claim 18, Livchak teaches wherein a reflective surface has a concave cross section having an elliptical arc shape, and wherein the ultraviolet lamp is disposed at a focal point position of an ellipse that forms the elliptical arc shape of the reflective surface (Figure 8A elliptical portion of panel “538” surrounding UV light source “534”, and light reflective baffle surround UV light to reflect light into the housing, paragraph [0009]). Regarding claim 21, Livchak teaches wherein the discharge portion is configured to discharge the fluid toward a suction region by the suction portion (Figure 3 discharge vent “318” discharges air jet “320” near room air “314” intake panel “308”). Regarding claim 30, Livchak teaches wherein the suction portion allows the sucked fluid to flow down the flow path as a jet flow (ventilation air pushes through primary air nozzles which generates jets induce a flow of air in a flow passage, paragraph [0005]). Regarding claim 33, Livchak teaches wherein the discharge portion comprises a continuous or intermittent exhaust port extending in one direction (Figure 2A extending in a continuous horizontal line) , and wherein an air curtain is generated by exhaust from the exhaust port (extended flow guide causes air to flow along the ceiling in a smooth function, paragraph [0094]). Regarding claim 34, Livchak teaches wherein the discharge portion is configured to discharge a jet flow (discharge vent form a mixing jet, paragraph [0039]). Regarding claim 37, Livchak teaches a second decreasing and eliminating means for decreasing and eliminating a subject, wherein the second decreasing and eliminating means comprises an electric field generating means for generating an electric field in a flow path, a heating means for heating inside of the flow path, and/or an ion generating means for generating ions (heat exchanger heats the induced air, paragraph [0057]). Regarding claim 5 6 , Livchak teaches wherein an ultraviolet leakage suppressor for suppressing ultraviolet light leaking to outside of the device and transmitting the fluid is disposed on a side of the suction portion and/or a side of the discharge portion ( Figure 5C panel “446” allows air inlet but blocks escaping light, paragraph [0041]). Regarding claim 57, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet leakage suppressor comprises a plurality of holes forming a honeycomb structure (flow straightener provides a measure of light blocking and may have a honey comb structure, paragraph [0070]). Regarding claim 58, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet leakage suppressor comprises a light shielding surface having a bent cross section (Figure 5A light blocking cup “404” with a bent shape). Regarding claim 59, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet suppressor comprises a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface, and wherein the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface are disposed at different inclination angles (Figure 13A extended flow guides “749” curve in opposite directions and block escaping light). Regarding claim 60, Livchak teaches wherein the ultraviolet leakage suppressor comprises a first inclined surface (Figure 9A grill “621”) and a second inclined surface (Figure 9A heat exchanger tube fins “614”), and wherein the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface are spaced apparat from each other and provided to be shifted so that that one inclined surface exists on an extension line of the other inclined surface in an inclination direction (Figure 9A grill structure “621” extends past heat exchanger fins “614” in the same angle of inclination and fins provide light blocking function, paragraph [0065], and discharge grill vanes provide further protection against light escape, paragraph [0065]). Claims 1, 13, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakasaki (JP 2005253799 A). Regarding claim 1, Nakasaki teaches a toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device (fluid purification device, paragraph [0001]) comprising: a flow path that communicates a suction portion configured to suck a fluid and a discharge portion configured to discharge the fluid with each other (Figure 10 flow through container “22” from inlet “20” to outlet “21”); a decreasing and eliminating means including an ultraviolet light source for decomposing and/or inactivating and/or sterilizing a subject contained in the fluid flowing down in the flow path (ultraviolet light arranged around container to decompose pollutants, paragraph [0002]); and a reflective surface that reflects ultraviolet ray from the decreasing and eliminating means toward the flow path, wherein the reflective surface reflects, with high order, an ultraviolet ray emitted from the ultraviolet light source toward the flow path at multiple time, to highly amplify a density of ultraviolet rays in the flow path (ultraviolet light reflected from reflected to that light can be uniformly irradiated over the entire light-receiving surface, paragraph [0015]). Regarding claim 13, Nakasaki teaches wherein the flow path has a distance that is an integer multiple or more of a straight line distance between the suction portion and the discharge portion (Figure 5 fluid “P” shown traversing the circumference of the device at least four time s between inlet and outlet). Regarding claim 43, Nakasaki teaches wherein a plurality of guide plates for partitioning the flow path into a plurality of regions concentrically is disposed in the flow path at intervals in a flow direction of the fluid (Figure 6 laminate structure “V” formed with stacked reflective “1” and photocatalytic plate “2”), wherein each guide plate has a communication path on one end portion or an other end portion along a reciprocating direction of the fluid (Figure 5 fluid “P” communicated between plates “1” in a U-shape when viewed from the top), and wherein the fluid in the flow path is allowed to flow down from the suction portion towards the discharge while flowing in the reciprocating direction and flowing to an inner side in a radial direction through the communication path (Figure 5 fluid “P” traverses between plates “1” in circular fashion from inlet to outlet). Regarding claim 44, Nakasaki teaches wherein each region of the plurality of regions partitioned by the plurality of guide plates has the same cross-sectional area (Figure 6 reflective plates “1” and photocatalytic plates “2” shown as the same size). Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tribelsky (US 20070272877 A1). Regarding claim 1, Tribelsky teaches a toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device (in-line treatment of liquids and gases, abstract), comprising: a flow path that communicates a suction portion configured to suck a fluid and a discharge portion configured to discharge the fluid with each other (Figure 2 fluid travels from fluid inlet “7” to outlet “8”); a decreasing and eliminating means including an ultraviolet light source for decomposing and/or inactivating and/or sterilizing a subject contained in the fluid flowing down in the flow path (fluid sterilized with UV light, abstract); and a reflective surface that reflects ultraviolet ray from the decreasing and eliminating means toward the flow path, wherein the reflective surface reflects with high order, an ultraviolet ray emitted from the ultraviolet light source toward the flow path at mu ltiple times, to highly amplify a density of ultraviolet rays in the flow path (reactor provides total internal reflection of UV light, abstract, and Figure 2 shows multiple reflections of light). Regarding claim 24, Nakasaki teaches wherein an area of a discharge port of the fluid in the discharge portion is larger than an area of a suction port of the fluid in the suction portion (Figure 2 outlet “8” is larger than fluid inlet “7”). Claims 1 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kijima (JP 2009240885 A). Regarding claim 1, Kijima teaches a toxic subject decreasing and eliminating device (cyclone for separating foreign matter from fluid, paragraph [0001]) comprising: a flow path that communicates a suction portion configured to suck a fluid and a discharge portion configured to discharge the fluid with each other (Figure 1 fluid “F” flows from inlet port “4” to discharge port “8”); a decreasing and eliminating means including an ultraviolet light source for decomposing and/or inactivating and/or sterilizing a subject contained in the fluid flowing down in the flow path (cyclone equipped with ultraviolet light to irradiate the fluid, paragraph [0001]); and a reflective surface that reflects ultraviolet ray from the decreasing and eliminating means toward the flow path, wherein the reflective surface reflects, with high order, and ultraviolet ray emitted from the ultraviolet light source toward the flow path at multiple times, to highly amplify a density of ultraviolet rays in the flow path (cyclone constructed of reflective material such as metal or alloy, paragraph [0017]). Regarding claim 39, Kijima teaches wherein the flow path comprises a cyclone portion for separating foreign matters contained in the fluid from the flow path (swirling flow generates sufficient centrifugal force to efficiently separate dust from air, paragraph [0002]). 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 . Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasaki . Regarding claim 45, while Nakasaki does not explicitly teach wherein each region of the plurality of regions partitioned by the plurality of guide plates has a cross-sectional area set to be narrower toward the inner side of the radial direction, it does teach placing the disc-shaped plates intervals (paragraph [0018]). Additionally, it has been established that a change in shape is not sufficient to differentiate an invention over prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plates taught by Nakasaki in an interval such that the resulting regions would have a narrower cross-section towards the inner side of the radial direction to achieve the desired fluid flow through the device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)). Regarding claim 46, while Nakasaki does not explicitly teach wherein each region of the plurality of regions partitioned by the plurality of guide plates has a cross-sectional area set to be wider toward the inner side of the radial direction, it does teach placing the disc-shaped plates intervals (paragraph [0018]). Additionally, it has been established that a change in shape is not sufficient to differentiate an invention over prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plates taught by Nakasaki in an interval such that the resulting regions would have a wider cross-section towards the inner side of the radial direction to achieve the desired fluid flow through the device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5524 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1374 . 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. /K.R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /DONALD R SPAMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799