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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2, encompassing claims 1, and 42, in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the requirement for unity of invention is not supported. This is not found persuasive because
(i) this is not related to the determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Rather, as stated in the previous office action, this application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention and these species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
(ii) the inventions of claims are drawn into different species and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the species are independent and distinct and the different species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species, which introduces additional search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-3, 5-6,10-15,18-20, 22-23, and 25-26 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stokes et al (PB-PUB US 2012/0318749).
Regarding claim 1, Stokes et al disclose a radiation source for disinfecting a fluid containing bacterial (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a flow cell 12 having an inlet 16 and an outlet 18 (i.e., a housing … an inlet and an outlet…, Figures 1-2, paragraphs 0015]-[0016]); and
(2) at least one radiation sources 20 within the flow cell 12, wherein the interior surface of the flow cell 12 is coated with reflective material 14, such as aluminum having a reflectance of 85% at the wavelength of 260 nm (i.e., at least one radiation source … emits UV radiation, wherein an inner side of the housing … is a reflector…, a reflectance… at least 0.6, Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0015], [0020], [0030], & [0043]).
Stokes also teaches that the flow cell 12 with internal reflective surface 14 can repeatedly reflect the radiation form the radiation source 20 to form uniform radiation field for optimal disinfection with a low intensity sources (paragraphs [0007], [0015], & [0034] - [0035]).
Thus, Stokes teaches that the interaction between the radiation from the radiation source and the repeatedly reflected radiation can improve disinfection efficiency (i.e., wherein the radiation source is arranged … constructively interferes with …).
Moreover, the instant specification defines “constructive interference” as “an increase of amplitude of intensity of the interacting UV radiation” (paragraph [0024] –[0025]). The instant specification further discloses that constructive interference can be achieved by utilizing a reflective material on the inner side of the housing, wherein the reflective material has a reflectance of at least 0.7, such as aluminum (paragraphs [0044], [0046]). Stokes teaches that the interior surface of the flow cell 12 is coated with a reflective material 14 having a reflectance of 0.85 (i.e., utilizing a reflective material …, Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0015], [0030], & [0043]).
Therefore, Stokes inherently teaches that the arrangement of the radiation sources within the flow cell results in constructive interferences of the radiation emitted by the radiation source with the reflected radiation.
It should be noted that the recitation of “wherein the radiation sources … have a path difference … interferes destructively” is cited as optional limitations, which does not further limit the claim.
Regarding claim 42, Stokes teaches the radiation source may be a wavelength of 240 nm to 280 nm (paragraphs [0020], & [0034]).
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 42 are rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-15, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-26 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights