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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/15/2025. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“oxygen delivery system” in claim 1;
“mixing element” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this case, “oxygen delivery system” of claim 1, is interpreted as an air pump or oxygen tank (specification, paragraph [0035]) and equivalents thereof;
“mixing element” of claim 6” is interpreted as a blade (paragraph [0033]) or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “an oxygen delivery system configured to introduce oxygen into the chamber in a manner that promotes contact between oxygen and the aqueous solution”. The specification describes an oxygen supply port configured to be coupled to an air pump, and the oxygen supply port may be coupled to an oxygen tank to inject oxygen into the chamber, and oxygen is emitted through exhaust holes of the chamber to bubble throughout the solution (paragraph [0035]). However, the disclosure fails to clearly describe or link the claimed “oxygen delivery system” or “promotes contact between oxygen and the aqueous solution“ with the subject matter of the disclosure at the time the application was filed. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “oxygen delivery system” and fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent on what structure(s) contribute to the oxygen delivery system. Additionally, the disclosure does not describe an “aqueous” solution as claimed. The specification discusses a solution such as water (paragraph [0040]), however an aqueous solution would be a mixture of a solute being dissolved in a solvent such as water. It is suggested to recite “an oxygen delivery system configured to introduce oxygen into the chamber in a manner that promotes contact between oxygen and the aqueous solution” as an air pump or oxygen tank configured to inject oxygen into the chamber to enhance contact of oxygen with a solution as described in the specification paragraph [0035]. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the chamber and lid are configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution.” While the specification describes: “Desirably, the use of the UV light source 144 and a reflective coating on the lid 104 may enhance the efficiency of the photoreactor system 100 by preserving the UV light within the chamber 102 and minimizing the required time for the photoreactor to process the sample. In a specific example, the chamber 102 may include a height H predetermined to enhance the efficiency of the photoreactor system 100” (paragraph [0037]), the disclosure fails to describe: “the chamber and lid are configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution”. Thus, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “spectrophotometric detector configured to monitor the sample during ultraviolet light exposure.” While the specification describes a spectrophotometric detector configured to measure a number of photons, i.e. the intensity of light, absorbed after it passes through a sample solution (paragraph [0034]), the disclosure fails to describe “spectrophotometric detector configured to monitor the sample during ultraviolet light exposure”. Thus, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “height configured to reduce photon attenuation through the aqueous solution”. While the specification discloses the height of the chamber (paragraph [0037]), the disclosure fails to describe the “height configured to reduce photon attenuation through the aqueous solution”. Thus, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the aqueous solution" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “oxygen delivery system” 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. The specification describes an oxygen supply port configured to be coupled to an air pump, and the oxygen supply port may be coupled to an oxygen tank to inject oxygen into the chamber, and oxygen is emitted through exhaust holes of the chamber to bubble throughout the solution (paragraph [0035]). However, the disclosure fails to clearly describe or link the claimed “oxygen delivery system” with the subject matter of the disclosure at the time the application was filed. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “oxygen delivery system” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent on what structure(s) contribute to the oxygen delivery system. It is suggested to recite “an oxygen delivery system configured to introduce oxygen into the chamber in a manner that promotes contact between oxygen and the aqueous solution” as an air pump or oxygen tank configured to inject oxygen into the chamber to enhance contact of oxygen with a solution as described in the specification paragraph [0035]. 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. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre et al. (US 2019019041 A1) in view of Mohr et al. (US 20120003734 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lefebvre teaches a photoreactor system (Figs. 2A-2C, 11, 13; abstract) for breaking down Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from a sample (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; note that TCH and a sample are not positively recited structurally; paragraphs [0042],[0114] teaches degradation by photocatalysis, therefore is structurally capable of being used for the intended use as claimed), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 2C, chamber of the reactor) that includes a sidewall (Fig. 2C, interpreted as one or more of the carbon felt, FTO glass, and the sidewalls of the solution outlet and air inlet) and a bottom wall (Fig. 2C, interpreted as the bottom wall comprising the diffusing holes);
a photocatalyst material (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0105] teaches the reactor comprises a film of titanium dioxide; paragraph [0079] teaches the cell/reactor comprises a photocatalyst, i.e. titanium dioxide) disposed on at least a portion of an interior surface of the chamber (Fig. 13; paragraph [0079]); and
an oxygen delivery system configured to introduce oxygen into the chamber in a manner that promotes contact between oxygen and the aqueous solution (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches an air inlet and diffusion holes for ensuring oxygen to bubble in the reactor; paragraphs [0081],[0094] teaches an aerator configured to provide oxygen gas to the photoelectrochemical cell; paragraph [0114] teaches oxygen gas was bubble into a medium, i.e. aqueous solution, which is interpreted as promoting contact between oxygen and an aqueous solution; therefore, the aerator reads on the 112(f) interpretation of an oxygen delivery system);
wherein the chamber is configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution (paragraph [0114] teaches a UV lamp irradiating a medium or solution sample by a UV lamp through the glass wall of the cell, therefore the chamber is configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution by allowing UV light to enter the chamber).
Lefebvre fails to teach: a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution.
Lefebvre teaches the photoelectrochemical cell may be a closed chamber or open chamber (paragraph [0075]). Lefebvre teaches a reactor with oxygen bubbling directly into a closed cell resulted in a great improvement as H2O2 concentration increased along with overall degradation rate constants (paragraph [0164]).
Mohr teaches a device for a photocatalytic process comprising a bioreactor, aqueous solution, where the reactor and pipes or chambers are a transparent or translucent material (abstract). Mohr teaches introduction of fluids and gasses improves distribution of a reaction medium and optimizes provision with light (paragraphs [0098]-[0099]). Mohr teaches inner surfaces are preferably designed to reflect light (paragraph [0108]). Mohr teaches the bioreactor can include a cover made of transparent or translucent material (paragraph [0109]). Mohr teaches to improve light conditions of the reactor, reflectors are provided above a light-conducting liquid or above a container to guide or collect light to the liquid (paragraph [0110]). Mohr teaches reactor elements can include glass or UV-transmittant plastic (paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lefebvre to incorporate Lefebvre’s teachings of a closed cell (paragraphs [0075],[0164]) and Mohr’s teachings of a bioreactor for photocatalytic processes that includes a cover made of transparent or translucent material (paragraphs [0098]-[0099],[0108]-[0110]) to provide: a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving photocatalytic reactions as taught by Lefebvre (paragraph [0164]) while allowing for desired and improved light conditions in the system as taught by Mohr (paragraphs [0098]-[0099],[0108]-[0110]).
Regarding claim 2, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a spectrophotometric detector configured to monitor the sample during ultraviolet light exposure (paragraphs [0113]-[0115] teaches a spectrophotometer, i.e. spectrophotometric detector, that measures transmissivity of UV radiation caused by the coating of titanium dioxide onto the glass; therefore, the spectrophotometer is structurally configured to monitor the sample as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, wherein the oxygen delivery system includes an air pump fluidly coupled to at least one outlet positioned to bubble oxygen through the aqueous solution (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches an air inlet and diffusion holes for ensuring oxygen to bubble in the reactor; paragraphs [0081],[0094] teaches an aerator configured to provide oxygen gas to the photoelectrochemical cell; paragraph [0114] teaches oxygen gas was bubble into a medium, i.e. aqueous solution; therefore, the system includes an aerator, i.e. air pump, fluidly coupled to an air inlet, i.e. at least one outlet, to bubble oxygen to an aqueous solution in the system).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lefebvre wherein the lid is one of a transparent lid and a translucent lid to permit ultraviolet light from an external source to enter the chamber (see above claim 1; Lefebvre in view of Mohr provides a lid configured to enhance ultraviolet light exposure to the aqueous solution, i.e. a transparent or translucent lid; Mohr, paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Lefebvre further teaches wherein the photocatalyst material includes titanium dioxide (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0105] teaches the reactor comprises a film of titanium dioxide).
Regarding claim 14, Lefebvre further teaches wherein the chamber has a height (Fig. 2C teaches the chamber has a height) configured to reduce photon attenuation through the aqueous solution (interpreted as an intended use of the height, see MPEP 2114; since Lefebvre’s chamber has a height, the height of Lefebvre is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 17, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a hydrogen peroxide inlet disposed along the sidewall (Fig. 3C teaches a solution inlet disposed along the sidewall of the system, which is structurally capable of providing hydrogen peroxide; note that “hydrogen peroxide” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the inlet) to militate against backflow (interpreted as an intended use of the hydrogen peroxide inlet, see MPEP 2114; since Lefebvre’s inlet is identical to the presently claimed inlet and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hermersdorf et al. (DE 102017213865 A1; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the spectrophotometric detector includes a view port and a device holder configured to position a mobile device camera with respect to the view port.
Hermersdorf teaches a spectrometric measuring device for analyzing a medium (paragraph [0002]). Hermersdorf teaches the device includes a view port (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0033], interpreted as comprising diffuser 1091 and lens 1092; note that the instant specification, paragraph [0034], discloses that a view port includes a lens) for guiding light to a detection unit (paragraph [0033]). Hermersdorf teaches the miniature spectrometer 101 can be integrated into a mobile terminal, which can be, for example, a smartphone, a spectrometer stick or a handheld spectrometer, which can be precisely inserted into the spectrometric measuring device and/or which can be arranged at a predetermined position of the holding structure (paragraph [0028]). Hermersdorf teaches a holding structure that allows for the spectrometer to be arranged at a predetermined position by a positioning device (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spectrophotometric detector of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of a spectrometric device, such as a smartphone, with a view port of Hermersdorf (paragraph [0033]) and the teachings of a holding structure and positioning device for the spectrometer of Hermersdorf (paragraph [0028]) to provide: wherein the spectrophotometric detector includes a view port and a device holder configured to position a mobile device camera with respect to the view port. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving direction of light to the spectrophotometric detector and improve supporting and positioning of the spectrophotometric detector for analysis of the system as discussed by Hermersdorf (paragraphs [0028],[0033]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahsan (US 20180057782 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while Lefebvre teaches pH was adjusted (paragraph [0116]) and controlled conditions of temperature (paragraph [0116]), modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to measure at least one of pH and temperature of the aqueous solution.
Ahsan teaches a photobioreactor (abstract) used as or with a photocatalytic device (paragraph [0017]). Ahsan teaches the system includes sensors for monitoring the system, that includes temperature and pH sensors, and controlling system and/or environmental surrounding based on the sensors (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of controlling pH and temperature of Lefebvre (paragraph [0116]) and the teachings of a photobioreactor with pH and temperature sensors of Ahsan (paragraph [0030]) to provide: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to measure at least one of pH and temperature of the aqueous solution. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving controlling conditions of the system as taught by Ahsan (paragraph [0030]).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20090230038 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a mixing element configured to agitate the aqueous solution.
Tanaka teaches an apparatus for producing photocatalytic reaction water through a photocatalytic reaction (abstract), the apparatus comprising a plurality of UV lights (paragraph [0023]). Tanaka teaches radiation efficiency of UV rays to a photocatalytic body can be enhanced and agitating blades can agitate water (paragraph [0007]) for enhancing efficiency of photocatalytic reaction (paragraph [0022]). Tanaka teaches oxygen is supplied and formed into bubbles that are brought into contact with the photocatalytic body therefore photocatalytic reaction can be performed more smoothly (paragraph [0094]). Tanaka teaches active oxygen species may be diffused by arranging a fan, i.e. agitation blades, that generates a water current by agitating water in the sealed container (paragraph [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of an apparatus for photocatalytic reaction that includes agitation blades of Tanaka (paragraph [0007],[0022],[0143]) to provide: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a mixing element configured to agitate the aqueous solution. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving agitation and processing of the sample (Tanaka, paragraph [0007],[0022],[0143]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein at least a portion of an interior surface of the lid is reflective and configured to reflect ultraviolet light back into the chamber.
Lefebvre teaches the photoelectrochemical cell may further comprise an optical medium, such as a mirror, configured to increase incident light on the optically pervious material by channeling light towards the photoelectrochemical cell (paragraph [0080]).
Mohr teaches the provision of light to reactor panels are important, therefore the inner surfaces are designed to reflect light (paragraph [0108]). Mohr teaches to improve light conditions of the reactor, reflectors are provided above a light-conducting liquid or above a container to guide or collect light to the liquid (paragraph [0110]).
Tanaka teaches an apparatus for producing photocatalytic reaction water through a photocatalytic reaction (abstract), the apparatus comprising a plurality of UV lights (paragraph [0023]). Tanaka teaches inner wall surface of a sealed container is formed of a mirror which reflects light (paragraph [0035]). Tanaka teaches the container body and lid body are covered with a reflector that reflects light (paragraph [0149]) and the UV rays that arrive at the container body and lid body are reflected towards the inside of the container body (paragraph [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of modified Lefebvre to incorporate Lefebvre’s teachings of a mirror to direct light to the photoelectrochemical cell (paragraph [0080]), Mohr’s teachings of inner surfaces designed to reflect light (paragraphs [0108],[0110]) and Tanaka’s teachings of a lid having a reflector (paragraphs [0035],[0149],[0150]) to provide: wherein at least a portion of an interior surface of the lid is reflective and configured to reflect ultraviolet light back into the chamber. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving direction and concentration of light to the chamber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Tanaka as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Buskirk et al. (US 20190091627 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 6, further comprising a solar cell coupled to one of the lid and the chamber, wherein the solar cell is configured to power the mixing element.
Lefebvre teaches solar driven transparent electrode (paragraph [0055]) and solar energy as a free and infinite source of power for photoelectrochemical process (paragraph [0180]).
Buskirk teaches an LED photocatalytic fluid purification system (abstract). Buskirk teaches visible light LEDs to stimulate the photocatalytic effect (paragraph [0059]), wherein titanium dioxide a significant role in the improvement of photocatalytic degradation of organics (paragraph [0060]). Buskirk teaches light is collected by a probe and analyzed with a spectrophotometric detector (paragraph [0064], “spectrometer”) and compared to a blank sample (paragraph [0064]), therefore characterizing decomposition of a compound (paragraph [0065]). Buskirk teaches a gas sensor to detect and quantify ethylene or other plant hormones to maintain or control concentrations at a fixed level (paragraph [0082]), wherein the gas sensor is preferably a compact infrared absorption sensor or spectrometer, which may be employed to provide feedback and control of gas levels via photocatalytic illumination control (paragraph [0082]). Buskirk teaches a control system uses input data from multiple sensors for sensing ethylene concentration, humidity, and temperature to determine operation of the system (paragraph [0086]). Buskirk teaches the system includes a power supply that incorporates batteries, solar cells, or fuel cells (paragraph [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photoreactor system of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of solar driven electrodes and solar energy of Lefebvre (paragraphs [0055],[0180]) and the teachings of a power supply that incorporates a battery or solar cells of Buskirk (paragraph [0086]) to provide: the photoreactor system of Claim 6, further comprising a solar cell coupled to one of the lid and the chamber, wherein the solar cell is configured to power the mixing element. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ease of charging and powering of the components of the system, such as the mixing blade.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. solar cell) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. providing power to the mixing element), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the solar cell as claimed would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling powering of the mixing element). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuetz (US 20180265382 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a baffle disposed within the chamber to increase photocatalyst surface area.
Lefebvre teaches a desire to fully utilize the surface areas of the electrodes (paragraph [0159]).
Schuetz teaches an apparatus for treating a contaminated fluid with a UV lamp within a housing (abstract). Schuetz teaches a UV light reactor that incorporates photocatalytic materials to enhance treatment of contaminated fluid, including titanium dioxide (paragraph [0033]). Schuetz teaches the reactor design includes a baffle configuration that optimizes internal surface area available for coating with the photocatalytic material, wherein the photocatalytic coating is provided on all surfaces of all flow baffles, divider plates, all inner surface of an outer wall, all inner surface of a top lid, and bottom plate (paragraph [0033]). Schuetz teaches an important added benefit of increasing the flow paths, by adding flow baffles, is the substantial increase in surface area coated with photocatalytic material, thereby increasing the production of desirable photocatalytic reactant to treat the fluid stream (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photoreactor system of modified Lefebvre to incorporate Lefebvre’s teachings of fully utilizing surface areas (paragraph [0159]) and the teachings of a photocatalytic reactor including baffles with photocatalytic coatings of Schuetz (paragraphs [0033],[0042]) to provide: the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a baffle disposed within the chamber to increase photocatalyst surface area. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving surface area available for catalytic reactions, thereby increasing photocatalytic reactions as taught by Schuetz (paragraphs [0033],[0042]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Schuetz as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Brown (US 20160095279 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the baffle is removably coupled to the chamber and is at least one of substantially cylindrically shaped and substantially conically shaped.
Schuetz teaches an apparatus for treating a contaminated fluid with a UV lamp within a housing (abstract). Schuetz teaches a UV light reactor that incorporates photocatalytic materials to enhance treatment of contaminated fluid, including titanium dioxide (paragraph [0033]). Schuetz teaches the reactor design includes a baffle configuration that optimizes internal surface area available for coating with the photocatalytic material, wherein the photocatalytic coating is provided on all surfaces of all flow baffles, divider plates, all inner surface of an outer wall, all inner surface of a top lid, and bottom plate (paragraph [0033]). Schuetz teaches an important added benefit of increasing the flow paths, by adding flow baffles, is the substantial increase in surface area coated with photocatalytic material, thereby increasing the production of desirable photocatalytic reactant to treat the fluid stream (paragraph [0042]). Schuetz teaches the baffles are removably positioned within the apparatus for ease of removal and alteration (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baffle of modified Lefebvre to provide: wherein the baffle is removably coupled to the chamber. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving removal and alteration of the baffles as taught by Schuetz (paragraph [0007]).
Modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the baffle is at least one of substantially cylindrically shaped and substantially conically shaped.
Brown teaches systems for culturing (paragraph [0003]). Brown teaches baffles are used with a container to improve and ensure uniform mixing and mass transfer between a gas and culture within a container (paragraph [0078]). Brown teaches the baffle comprises a cylindrical tube (paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baffle of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of a cylindrical baffle of Brown (paragraph [0078]) to provide: wherein the baffle is removably coupled to the chamber and is at least one of substantially cylindrically shaped and substantially conically shaped. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving and ensuring uniform mixing of fluids within the system as taught by Brown (paragraph [0078]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 20030211022 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lefebvre further teaches an ultraviolet light source (paragraph [0051] teaches irradiation by UV light, i.e. UV light source; paragraph [0080]). Modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the ultraviolet light source is coupled to an interior surface of the lid.
Lefebvre teaches the technology can be used in conjunction with applications that utilize solar energy as a free and infinite source of natural UV light (paragraph [0180]).
Gross teaches a device for photocatalytic reactions (abstract; Fig. 1). Gross teaches the invention treats water using UV light (paragraph [0003]). Gross teaches a light source coupled to an interior surface of a lid (Fig. 1, lamp 2 coupled to an interior surface of container lid 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of a UV light coupled to an interior surface of a lid of Gross (Fig. 1) to provide: wherein the ultraviolet light source is coupled to an interior surface of the lid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully positioning the light source to direct light into the system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Gross as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210170061 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the ultraviolet light source emits light at a wavelength between 570 and 590 nm.
Lefebvre teaches a UV artificial light or sunlight having a wavelength of more than 300 nm (paragraph [0042]). Lefebvre teaches the technology can be used in conjunction with applications that utilize solar energy as a free and infinite source of natural UV light (paragraph [0180]).
Kim teaches a photocatalytic filter for air purification comprising titanium dioxide (abstract). Kim teaches a light source emits light appropriate for generating a photocatalytic reaction in a photocatalyst; wherein the light emits light having a wavelength range of a white light or UV rays (paragraph [0034]). Note that “white light” is interpreted as including wavelengths between 570 and 590 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultraviolet light source of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of wavelengths of light for generating a photocatalytic reaction, such as white light, of Kim (paragraph [0034]) and the teachings of UV artificial light or sunlight as a source of light and having a wavelength of more than 300 nm of Lefebvre (paragraphs [0042], [0180]) to provide: wherein the ultraviolet light source emits light at a wavelength between 570 and 590 nm. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving generation of a desired photocatalytic reaction in the catalyst coating as taught by Kim (paragraph [0034]).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Gross as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 20200017375 A1).
Regarding claim 16, while Lefebvre teaches ultraviolet light can include UVA (paragraph [0080]), modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the ultraviolet light source includes a plurality of UVA LEDs.
Ryu teaches a water filtration device comprising a container and a plurality of UV LEDs (abstract). Ryu teaches UV light used to enhance advanced oxidation with photo-catalyst along with other UV LEDs (paragraph [0043]-[0044]). Ryu teaches to improve efficacy of UV disinfection, the top cover, floor, and walls are coated with a photo reactant and UV reflective material, the photo reactant including titanium dioxide (paragraph [0044]). Ryu teaches UV LEDs that emit in the UVA range (paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultraviolet light source of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of photocatalysis reactions with multiple LEDs and UVA range of Ryu (paragraphs [0043]-[0044],[0052]) and the teachings of UV light including UVA of Lefebvre (paragraph [0080]) to provide: wherein the ultraviolet light source includes a plurality of UVA LEDs. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the amount of UVA light provided to the system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 12, further comprising a reflective plate disposed inside the chamber facing the ultraviolet light source.
Mohr teaches inner surfaces are preferably designed to reflect light (paragraphs [0042],[0108]). Mohr teaches to improve light conditions of the reactor, reflectors are provided above a light-conducting liquid or above a container to guide or collect light to the liquid (paragraph [0110]).
Ryu teaches to improve efficacy of UV disinfection, the top cover, floor, and walls are coated with UV reflective materials (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of inner surfaces designed to reflect light of Mohr and Ryu to provide: the photoreactor system of Claim 12, further comprising a reflective plate disposed inside the chamber facing the ultraviolet light source. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of improving efficacy of photocatalytic reactions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson et al. (US 20170225973 A1).
Regarding claim 19, while Lefebvre teaches a solution outlet (Fig. 2C), modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the chamber includes a drain valve configured to remove solids from the aqueous solution.
Henderson teaches a water treatment apparatus comprising a vessel and a source of UV radiation (abstract). Henderson teaches the invention is for treatment of water by photocatalytic oxidation (paragraph [0001]). Henderson teaches the apparatus includes controllable valves (paragraph [0063]). Henderson teaches controllable flow valves disposed in each flow outlet tubing (paragraph [0159]). Henderson teaches a drain line for removing solids and flow valves that are electronically controlled (paragraph [0188]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of a water treatment apparatus for photocatalytic oxidation that includes controllable valves and a drain line for removing solids of Henderson (paragraphs [0001],[0063],[0159],[0188]) to provide: wherein the chamber includes a drain valve configured to remove solids from the aqueous solution. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated control of solution or solid removal from the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Buskirk et al. (US 20190091627 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the photocatalyst material is coupled to the chamber with an adhesive applied such that the photocatalyst remains exposed to the aqueous solution.
Buskirk teaches an LED photocatalytic fluid purification system (abstract). Buskirk teaches gaseous fluid purifying systems, wherein removal of contaminants are of great interest; contaminants includes formaldehydes, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc. (paragraph [0022]). Buskirk teaches adhesive material may be used to promote bonding of a powder to a support (paragraph [0063]). Buskirk teaches photocatalyst may be adhered surfaces disposed with a flow system (paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocatalyst material of modified Lefebvre to incorporate the teachings of adhesives and adhering a photocatalyst of Buskirk (paragraphs [0063],[0076]) to provide: wherein the photocatalyst material is coupled to the chamber with an adhesive applied such that the photocatalyst remains exposed to the aqueous solution. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully promoting bonding of the catalyst coating to the chamber of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 09/15/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lefebvre et al. (US 2019019041 A1) in view of Mohr et al. (US 20120003734 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758