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 Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the fluid” in line 12 of the claim should read “the turbid fluid”.
In Claim 1, “a microbiologically pure fluid” in lines 29-30 of the claim should read “the microbiologically pure fluid”.
In Claim 1, “above” in line 25 and “below” in line 28 appear to have been switched, as the controller logic appears to want to recirculate the fluid if the temperature is below the threshold and discharge the fluid if the temperature is above the threshold.
In Claim 9, “the fluid” in line 2 of the claim should read “the turbid fluid”.
In Claim 11, “the fluid” in line 1 of the claim should read “the turbid fluid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Stoutz (US Patent No. 3934042 A) hereinafter De Stoutz in view of Kemp (US Patent No. 4416194 A) hereinafter Kemp in view of D’Amore et al (US Patent Application No. 20200156976 A1) hereinafter D’Amore.
Regarding Claim 1, De Stoutz teaches an apparatus for the irradiative treatment of beverages to sterilize or pasteurize them (i.e., a system for a filterless preparation of a microbiologically pure fluid from a turbid fluid, the system comprising; Abstract) which includes a heat exchanger (i.e., a heat exchanger for receiving the turbid fluid from an ambient temperature fluid source, said brazed plate heat exchanger having an inlet for receiving the turbid fluid, a first outlet connection, a second outlet connection, and an inlet connection for receiving a heated fluid; Fig. 1, #39) followed by an infra-red unit (i.e., a flow channel configured to expose the turbid fluid to an infrared irradiation, said flow channel receives the fluid from said first outlet connection, said flow channel further comprising a heated fluid outlet; Fig. 1, #41) using fused quartz tubes surrounded by infra-red heating coils (i.e., an infrared radiation source configured to heat the turbid fluid through exposure to said infrared irradiation, said infrared radiation source comprises a plurality of infrared bulbs having direct contact with the turbid fluid; Fig. 3, # 45 and 47) which then has two alternate paths (Fig. 1, #51 and 53) through two valves (Fig. 1, #55 and 57), the path through conduit 51 leading to an insulated enclosure, shown to have a coiled path (i.e., an insulated circulation chamber having a plurality of coils for a passage of the turbid fluid therethrough, said insulated circulation chamber receives the turbid fluid from said flow channel; Fig. 1, #59) to maintain the beverage at a specified temperature to complete the sterilization induced by the heating from the infra-red unit (Col. 2, Lines 30-68) which then sends the beverage back through the heat exchanger to begin cooling (i.e., directing the turbid fluid to said inlet connection; Col. 3, Lines 1-30). De Stoutz does not explicitly teach sensors, but describes taking temperatures of the beverages at the beginning and end of the infrared unit and shows a graph of temperature over time of different beverages at different points in the process and a sensor is implied (i.e., a sensor capable of measuring a temperature of the fluid proximate said recirculation pump; Figs. 4-6; Col. 3, Lines 37-49).
De Stoutz does not teach a recirculation pump for receiving the turbid fluid from said insulated circulation chamber and directing the turbid fluid to each of said flow channel in a first valve configuration and said inlet connection in a second valve configuration; and a sensor proximate said recirculation pump; upon said sensor detecting said temperature below a threshold temperature, redirect the turbid fluid to said inlet of said brazed plate heat exchanger and, upon sensor detecting said temperature above the threshold temperature, to direct the turbid fluid to said flow channel, thereby ensuring the microbiologically pure fluid at said heated fluid outlet.
However, Kemp teaches a system including a main beverage heater (Fig 1, #22) that discharges to a holding tube (i.e., for receiving the turbid fluid from said circulation chamber; Fig. 1, #28) which has a temperature sensor (i.e., a sensor capable of measuring a temperature of the turbid fluid proximate said recirculation pump; Fig. 1, #40) that controls a valve (Fig. 1, #45) to direct flow either back to a booster pump (i.e., a recirculation pump; Fig. 1, #49) and the main beverage heater (i.e., and directing the turbid fluid to each of said flow channel in a first valve configuration) or to the regenerator (i.e., said inlet connection in a second valve configuration; Fig. 1, #20) with the purpose of avoiding excessively cool beverage exiting the main heater and ensuring pasteurization is completed (i.e., wherein upon said sensor detecting said temperature below a threshold temperature, said recirculation pump redirects the turbid fluid to said inlet connection of said brazed plate heat exchanger; Col. 4, Lines 3-29) with flow through the regenerator being the standard path of flow if the temperature is above the threshold (i.e., upon sensor detecting said temperature above the threshold temperature, to direct the turbid fluid to said flow channel, thereby ensuring the microbiologically pure fluid at said heated fluid outlet; Col. 3, Lines 52-68).
Kemp is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a beverage pasteurization system (i.e., a system for microbial purification of a fluid; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by De Stoutz with the recirculation loop as taught by Kemp because the recirculation loop would ensure that pasteurization takes places before discharging the liquid.
De Stoutz in view of Kemp does not teach a brazed plate heat exchanger and a controller in operable connection with said infrared radiation source, said recirculation pump and said sensor and configured to supply an electrical charge to said plurality of infrared bulbs and said recirculation pump and wherein said controller is configured to activate said recirculation pump and said controller is additionally configured to deactivate said recirculation pump.
However, D’Amore teaches the use of a brazed plate heat exchanger for use as a water heater (Paragraph 0048). D’Amore further teaches the use of a controller (i.e., a controller in operable connection with) to cause an activation of a sanitation loop and the increase of a water heater (i.e., with said infrared radiation source) to heat the water above a sanitization temperature for an extended period of time (i.e., said sensor; Paragraph 0003) where the controller is a processor or microcomputer based controller (Paragraph 0036) and can command the water heater to change temperature (Paragraph 0040) and activate the sanitation loop pump (i.e., said recirculation pump; wherein said controller is configured to activate said recirculation pump and said controller is additionally configured to deactivate said recirculation pump; Paragraph 0041) and the water heater can be an electric heater (Paragraph 0018).
D’Amore is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water heating and treatment system for the suppression of pathogens including bacteria (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as made obvious by De Stoutz in view of Kemp with the brazed plate heat exchanger and controller as taught by D’Amore because the brazed plate heat exchanger and controller are an alternative heat exchanger and automatic controller both known in the use of heating water, particularly in the application of anti-microbial treatments. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Furthermore, the limitation “thereby ensuring the microbiologically pure fluid at said heated fluid outlet” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Regarding Claim 2, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 1. De Stoutz further teaches that the conduit (Fig. 1, #51) flows through an insulated enclosure (i.e., wherein said insulated circulation chamber further comprises an insulating material substantially surrounding said plurality of coils; Fig. 1, #59; Col. 2, Lines 53-68).
Regarding Claim 3, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 2. De Stoutz further teaches that the conduit (Fig. 1, #51) flows through an insulated enclosure (i.e., wherein said plurality of coils is a continuous, sealed pipe; Fig. 1, #59; Col. 2, Lines 53-68). De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system except for having an internal diameter of at least 0.5 inches. A change in size is rendered obvious where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that pipe sizing is an obvious parameter to vary based upon the expected flow rates of a given system.
Regarding Claim 4, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 3. De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system except for wherein said plurality of coils have a coil radius of at least 6 inches. The shape of the coil radius is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the coil radius is an obvious parameter to vary based upon the space available for the piping within the insulated enclosure.
Regarding Claim 5, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 4. De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system except for wherein said plurality of coils are at least 10 coils. The number of coils is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the number of coils is an obvious parameter to vary based upon the space available for the piping within the insulated enclosure and the desired length of time for the fluid to flow through the insulated enclosure.
Regarding Claim 6, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “said threshold temperature is 1000C” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 9, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said brazed plate heat exchanger cools the turbid fluid using said ambient temperature fluid source” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 10, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the turbid fluid is a contaminated water supply” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 11, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 10. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the turbid fluid when exiting said brazed plate heat exchanger is a microbiologically pure water” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forsberg et al (US Patent Application No. 20050139552 A1) hereinafter Forsberg.
Regarding Claim 7, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore makes obvious the system of claim 1. De Stoutz further teaches that the infra-red unit comprises heating coils surrounding a bank of fused quartz tubes (i.e., provides an electrical power to said infrared radiation source; Col. 2, Lines 34-52). De Stoutz does not explicitly teach the “power source”, but a heating coil inherently requires electricity to function and thus the power source is indirectly disclosed. Kemp further teaches the low beverage temperature sensor (Fig. 1, #40) is connected by circuitry to a valve (Fig. 1, #45) to provide control (i.e., an electronic controller connected to said sensor; Col. 4, Lines 3-29). D’Amore further teaches the use of temperature to control the operation of a sanitation loop pump to increase the temperature of hot water above a temperature set point for a given amount of time (i.e., an electronic controller connected to said sensor and said recirculating pump; Abstract). D’Amore further teaches the use of a controller to cause an activation of a sanitation loop and the increase of a water heater to heat the water above a sanitization temperature for an extended period of time (Paragraph 0003) where the controller is a processor or microcomputer based controller (i.e., a power source connected to said controller; Paragraph 0036) and can command the water heater to change temperature (Paragraph 0040) and activate the sanitation loop pump (Paragraph 0041) and the water heater can be an electric heater (i.e., wherein said power source in combination with said controller provides an electrical power; Paragraph 0018).
De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore does not teach a low-voltage transformer connected to said recirculation pump.
However, Forsberg teaches that the use of low voltage for pumps has the purpose of improving safety (i.e., a low-voltage transformer connected to said recirculation pump; Paragraph 0196).
Forsberg is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water generator capable of sanitizing it for human use (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pumps as made obvious by De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore with the low voltage pumps as taught by Forsberg because the low voltage pumps would improve the safety of the system.
Regarding Claim 8, De Stoutz in view of Kemp in view of D’Amore in view of Forsberg makes obvious the system of claim 7. D’Amore further teaches that sanitization, sensors, a water heater, piping, and a pump can all be located in an enclosed apparatus for the purpose of being compact and saving space (i.e., further comprising a housing, said housing contains said brazed heat plate exchanger, said flow channel and said infrared radiation source, said insulated circulation chamber, said recirculation pump and said sensor; Fig. 3, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0061).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 OCTOBER 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 7, and 10 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the drawings and the specification have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the added limitation of a direct contact infrared radiation source in the instant claim 1 is different from the infrared radiation source as taught by De Stoutz (US Patent No. 3934042 A) hereinafter De Stoutz and direct contact is important for the transfer of energy to turbid fluids, and milk, juice, and wine are not considered turbid fluids and that the system of the instant claims has unexpected advantages in the purification of turbid fluids due to the direct infra-red heating application (Arguments filed 06 OCTOBER 2025, Page 10, Paragraph 2 to Page 12, Paragraph 1 and Page 13, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that De Stoutz in view of Kemp (US Patent No. 4416194 A) hereinafter Kemp in view of D’Amore et al (US Patent Application No. 20200156976 A1) hereinafter D’Amore do not teach the integrated controller loop for the discharge of microbially pure water (Arguments filed 06 OCTOBER 2025, Page 12, Paragraphs 2-3).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 2-11, that claim 1 is allowable and thus the dependent claims are also allowable (Arguments filed 06 OCTOBER 2025, Page 13, Paragraph 3).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the direct contact infrared radiation and application to treating turbid fluids, Applicant discloses a suitable infra-red electric liquid heater for use in the instant invention, Wachenheim (US Patent No. 5371830 A) hereinafter Wachenheim, which describes a silica envelope surrounding the tungsten filament, such that the silica envelope is in direct contact with the water to be heated (Col. 2, Line 49 to Col. 3, Line 16). De Stoutz teaches quartz tubes with infra-red heating coils arranged around each of the quartz tubes where the fluid flows inside the quartz tubes to be heated (Col. 2, Lines 34-52). The two applications have a filament or coil in contact with silica or quartz and the silica or quartz is both directly in contact with the fluid to be heated. The applications are identical with regard to how direct the infra-red is applied to the fluid. Furthermore, juice is commonly opaque and containing suspended matter such as pulp, and so the apparatus taught by De Stoutz would apply to turbid fluids as well.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the integrated controller loop, De Stoutz teaches the necessity of keeping the fluid at an elevated temperature for a specific time period while Kemp teaches the automatic recirculation to the heater if the temperature is too low. Since De Stoutz and Kemp are from 1976 and 1983, respectively, the art does not teach computer based controllers to accomplish this purpose. However, D’Amore teaches a water heater system automatically controlled by a computer controller to circulate water when the temperature is too low to ensure the water remains sterilized, showing that it is well known to apply computer controllers to the process of water sterilization, and specifically in response to sensed temperatures and by controlling pumps and heaters. Essentially, De Stoutz and Kemp teach the fundamental process and D’Amore teaches modernizations that have occurred in the intervening time.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for the dependent claims, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-11 are also not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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