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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each objection and 112(a), 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 02/09/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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, 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 supply port coupled to the chamber (Fig. 2C teaches an air inlet, i.e. oxygen supply port, coupled to the chamber of the reactor; Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium; therefore the air inlet is capable of functioning to supply oxygen, i.e. oxygen supply port) and configured to introduce oxygen into a solution disposed within the chamber (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium);
wherein the oxygen supply port is fluidly coupled to an air pump (paragraphs [0081],[0094] teaches an aerator configured to provide oxygen gas to the photoelectrochemical cell; paragraph [0114] teaches oxygen gas was bubbled into a medium, i.e. aqueous solution; therefore, the system includes the air inlet, i.e. oxygen supply port, fluidly coupled to an aerator, i.e. air pump, to bubble oxygen to an aqueous solution in the system) and a plurality of exhaust holes formed in the bottom wall of the chamber (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet coupled to diffusion holes, i.e. exhaust holes, formed in the bottom of the reactor for ensuring oxygen to bubble in the reactor);
Lefebvre fails to teach: a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber.
Lefebvre teaches the photoelectrochemical cell may be a closed chamber or open chamber (paragraph [0075]). Lefebvre teaches a UV lamp irradiating a medium or solution sample by a UV lamp through the glass wall of the cell (paragraph [0114]). 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 a UV lamp to irradiate a solution sample through the wall of the cell (paragraph [0114]) 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 permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber. 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]).
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. the photoreactor system including a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. providing a closed cell that includes a transparent cover for photocatalytic processes), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. adding a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling improved photocatalytic reactions as taught by Lefebvre while allowing for desired and improved light conditions). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a spectrophotometric detector configured to measure an intensity of light associated with the sample (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 measure an intensity of light associated with the sample).
Regarding claim 5, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of exhaust holes (Fig. 2C, diffusing holes) are configured to emit oxygen bubbles through the solution disposed within the chamber (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium).
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 17, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a hydrogen peroxide inlet disposed on the interior surface of the sidewall at a height (Fig. 2C teaches a solution inlet disposed along the sidewall of the system at a height, which implies an inlet disposed on the interior surface of the reactor at a height corresponding to the solution inlet shown, wherein the inlet 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) configured 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 pH meter configured to measure a pH value of the sample; and a thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the sample.
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 pH meter configured to measure a pH value of the sample; and a thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the sample. 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 blade configured to agitate the aqueous solution disposed within the chamber.
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 blade configured to agitate the aqueous solution disposed within the chamber. 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 includes a reflective coating.
Lefebvre teaches the photoelectrochemical cell may further comprise an optical medium, such as a mirror, i.e. reflective coating, 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, i.e. reflective coating, 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, i.e. reflective coating, 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 includes a reflective coating. 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 electrically coupled to and configured to power the mixing blade.
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 electrically coupled to and configured to power the mixing blade. 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, the baffle including the photocatalyst material disposed thereon.
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, the baffle including the photocatalyst material disposed thereon. 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 wherein the baffle includes a pin configured to be received in an aperture formed in the bottom wall of the chamber.
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: wherein the baffle includes a pin configured to be received in an aperture formed in the bottom wall of the chamber.
Schuetz teaches the baffles are removably positioned within the apparatus for ease of removal and alteration (paragraph [0007]).
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 includes a pin (Figs. 11-12, paragraph [0082], teaches baffle 130 including pin shaped components, including elements 154 and 162) configured to be received in an aperture (160) formed in the bottom wall of the container (Fig. 11). Brown teaches baffles can be attached to the container in a variety of different techniques, such as attached to a lower end wall through an opening (paragraphs [0081]-[0082]).
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 Schuetz’s teachings of removable baffles (paragraph [0007]) and Brown’s teaches of baffles including a pin configure to be received in an aperture formed in the bottom wall of the container (Figs. 11-12; paragraphs [0078],[0081]-[0082]) to provide: wherein the baffle includes a pin configured to be received in an aperture formed in the bottom wall of the chamber. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ease of attachment of the baffles to the chamber and 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 14 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 Mass (US 5151252A).
Regarding claim 14, Lefebvre further teaches wherein the chamber has a height (Fig. 2C teaches the chamber has a height). Modified Lefebvre fails to teach the height of less than about five inches.
Mass teaches a reactor for treatment of a fluid with light, the reactor comprising a reactor housing, central photochemical treatment region, and one or more light sources (abstract). Mass teaches the dimensions of the housing and treatment region can vary; wherein the height is usually from about 2-15 inches, preferably about 4-8 inches (column 8, lines 32-52).
Since Mass teaches the reactor comprising a housing with a height of 2-15 inches or 4-8 inches (column 8, lines 32-52), wherein the range of 2-15 inches or 4-8 inches overlaps with the claimed range of less than about five inches, i.e. 2-5 inches, 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 provide the height of less than about five inches. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 2-5 inches) from the taught range of 2-15 inches or 4-8 inches to optimize the volume of the chamber as desired (Mass, column 8, lines 32-52) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Hermersdorf as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210170061 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lefebvre fails to teach: the photoreactor system of Claim 3, further comprising a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength between 570 nm 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: the photoreactor system of Claim 3, further comprising a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength between 570 nm 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]).
Claim 16 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 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.
Claim 18 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 Hermersdorf et al. (DE 102017213865 A1; see machine translation) and Ryu et al. (US 20200017375 A1).
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 and a 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]).
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 a spectrometric device, such as a smartphone, with a view port of Hermersdorf (paragraph [0033]) and 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 and a view port. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of improving efficacy of photocatalytic reactions and improving direction of light towards a desired optical port.
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) and Araiza et al. (US 20070181509 A1).
Regarding claim 19, while Lefebvre teaches a solution outlet (Fig. 2C), modified Lefebvre fails to teach: wherein the chamber includes a drain valve which has a filter configured to remove particulates from the sample.
Araiza teaches a device for treatment of a liquid or gaseous medium using UV radiation (abstract). Araiza teaches the device includes a reactor coupled with a control device, the device includes an outlet channel (Fig. 1, outlet channel 6), and drain valve (Fig. 1, filter device 22 and solenoid valve 20) including a filter device (22) for purposes of filtering out potential radical residue and/or residual ozone from the treated medium (paragraph [0035]). Araiza teaches water is sterilized and freed of chemical contamination and exits via the outlet channel, potential post-filters, the valve, and a pump (paragraph [0050]). Araiza teaches if a haze exceeds a specified threshold, the control device shuts down the valve to prevent the unit from restarting, and operation is permitted only after cleaning or error correction (paragraph [0050]).
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 Araiza’s teachings of device for treating a medium using UV radiation which includes a drain valve with a filter to filter out potential residues from the treated medium (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0035],[0050]) to provide: wherein the chamber includes a drain valve which has a filter configured to remove particulates from the sample. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated control of solution or solid removal from the system and improving filtering of undesired particulates.
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 an adhesive is applied to the interior surface of the chamber and the photocatalyst material is disposed over the adhesive such that the photocatalyst material remains exposed.
Buskirk teaches an LED photocatalytic fluid purification system (abstract). Buskirk teaches gaseous fluid purifying systems, wherein removal of contaminants is 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 an adhesive is applied to the interior surface of the chamber and the photocatalyst material is disposed over the adhesive such that the photocatalyst material remains exposed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully promoting bonding of the catalyst coating to the chamber of the system while ensuring the catalyst is properly exposed and disposed within the chamber of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-10, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 02/09/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-19, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 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).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-19, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, 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).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Lefebvre does not teach “an oxygen supply port is fluidly coupled to an air pump and to a plurality of exhaust holes formed in the bottom wall of the chamber to introduce oxygen into a solution disposed within the chamber” (Remarks, pages 11-12), the examiner disagrees.
Lefebvre teaches: an oxygen supply port coupled to the chamber (Fig. 2C teaches an air inlet, i.e. oxygen supply port, coupled to the chamber of the reactor; Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium; therefore the air inlet is capable of functioning to supply oxygen, i.e. oxygen supply port) and configured to introduce oxygen into a solution disposed within the chamber (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium);
wherein the oxygen supply port is fluidly coupled to an air pump (paragraphs [0081],[0094] teaches an aerator configured to provide oxygen gas to the photoelectrochemical cell; paragraph [0114] teaches oxygen gas was bubbled into a medium, i.e. aqueous solution; therefore, the system includes the air inlet, i.e. oxygen supply port, fluidly coupled to an aerator, i.e. air pump, to bubble oxygen to an aqueous solution in the system) and a plurality of exhaust holes formed in the bottom wall of the chamber (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet coupled to diffusion holes, i.e. exhaust holes, formed in the bottom of the reactor for ensuring oxygen to bubble in the reactor).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, page 12), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the limitations regarding the bottom wall, exhaust holes, air pump, and oxygen supply port are taught by Lefebvre as taught above, and not through the combination of Lefebvre and Mohr. Mohr is used in combination with Lefebvre to arrive at the claimed “a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber”, which is not argued.
In response to applicant’s argument that Mohr additionally does not teach the claimed bottom-wall oxygen bubbling arrangement (Remarks, page 13), the examiner notes that Lefebvre is used to teach the claimed bottom-wall oxygen bubbling arrangement; and Mohr is used in combination with Lefebvre to arrive at the claimed “a lid coupled to the chamber; wherein the lid is configured to permit ultraviolet light to enter the chamber”. As elaborated in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the combination of Lefebvre and Mohr teaches all the elements of claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that the cited art does not teach newly amended claim 5 (Remarks, page 13), the examiner disagrees. Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of exhaust holes (Fig. 2C, diffusing holes) are configured to emit oxygen bubbles through the solution disposed within the chamber (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0166] teaches the air inlet and diffusing 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 bubbled into a medium).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 2 and 3, specifically that Hermersdorf does not address integration of a mobile-device-based spectrophotometric detector into the claimed photoreactor architecture and the Examiner has not articulated why one of ordinary skill would have modified the Lefebvre/Mohr reactor to include Applicant’s particular mobile-device view-port arrangement while preserving operability of the aqueous photoreactor (Remarks, pages 13-14), the examiner disagrees.
Regarding claim 2, Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a spectrophotometric detector configured to measure an intensity of light associated with the sample (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 measure an intensity of light associated with the sample).
Regarding claim 3, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lefebvre teaches a spectrophotometer that measures transmissivity of UV radiation caused by the coating of titanium dioxide onto the glass (paragraphs [0113]-[0115]), however 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 provides teachings and suggestions of a spectrometric measuring device for analyzing a medium (paragraph [0002]), which is similar to modified Lefebvre and is an analogous art since it is in the same field of endeavor. Hermersdorf provides teachings of a spectrometric device, such as a smartphone, with a view port (paragraph [0033]) and teachings of a holding structure and positioning device for the spectrometer (paragraph [0028]). Hermersdorf provides motivation of a spectrometer 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]) and 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 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]).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the references to arrive at the limitations of claim 3 and the proposed modification provides a reasoned explanation for the modification.
In response to applicant’s argument that the proposed Hermesdorf modification is not a mere predictable substitution and that the combination would require a substantial redesign or would change the manner in which the prior art operates (Remarks, pages 14), the examiner disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As discussed above, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the references to arrive at the limitations of claim 3 and the proposed modification provides a reasoned explanation for the modification.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 14, first full paragraph, “Paragraph [0034] further discloses that the mobile device holder repeatably couples the mobile device to the chamber in a substantially similar position and angle, thereby supporting consistent detection”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 4, specifically that the Examiner has not established why one of ordinary skill would have modified the particular Lefebvre/Mohr photoreactor combination to include both a pH meter and a thermometer as claimed in the context of Applicant's bottom-wall oxygen-bubbling photoreactor system (Remarks, page 14), the examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 pH meter configured to measure a pH value of the sample; and a thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the sample. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving controlling conditions of the system as taught by Ahsan (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the claimed pH meter and thermometer to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 6-7, specifically that the Office Action does not provide an adequate reason why one would combine the cited references in the claimed manner, nor does it address how the proposed modifications would affect fluid flow, oxygen bubbling, and photocatalytic reaction conditions in the modified reactor (Remarks, pages 14-15), the examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches an apparatus for producing photocatalytic reaction water through a photocatalytic reaction (abstract), the apparatus comprising a plurality of UV lights (paragraph [0023]), wherein Tanaka is similar to Lefebvre and is an analogous art since it is in the same field of endeavor. Tanaka provides teachings of an apparatus for photocatalytic reaction that includes agitation blades of Tanaka (paragraph [0007],[0022],[0143]). Tanaka provides motivations of: 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]); and photocatalytic reaction can be performed more smoothly (paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 blade configured to agitate the aqueous solution disposed within the chamber. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving agitation and processing of the sample (Tanaka, paragraph [0007],[0022],[0143]). Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Lefebvre provides teachings and suggestions of solar driven electrodes and solar energy (paragraphs [0055],[0180]). Buskirk teaches an LED photocatalytic fluid purification system (abstract), wherein Buskirk is similar to Lefebvre and is an analogous art since it is in the same field of endeavor. Buskirk provides teachings of a power supply that incorporates a battery or solar cells (paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 electrically coupled to and configured to power the mixing blade. 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). Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8, specifically that the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason why one would modify Lefebvre's reactor to include Applicant's catalyst-coated baffle, and therefore the rejection rests on hindsight reconstruction (Remarks, page 15), the examiner disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, regarding claim 8, Lefebvre provides teachings and motivation to fully utilize the surface areas of the electrodes (paragraph [0159]). Schuetz provides teachings and motivation of: 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 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, the baffle including the photocatalyst material disposed thereon. 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]). Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived that the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 9 (Remarks, pages 15-16), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the new limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lefebvre in view of Mohr and Schuetz as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Brown (US 20160095279 A1).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 10-12 and 16, specifically that the rejection does not establish why one of ordinary skill would combine these features with amended claim 1 (Remarks, page 16), the examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As discussed in the rejections of claims 10-12 and 16, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed limitations. Additionally, note that applicant’s arguments regarding claims 10-11,12, and 16 (Remarks, page 16, first full paragraph) are conclusory arguments and are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 11, specifically that the Office Action does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lefebvre's reactor to include Applicant's claimed reflective-coating arrangement in combination with the claimed oxygen-supply-port architecture, air pump, bottom-wall exhaust holes, and solution-disposed chamber and the rejection appears to rely upon hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap (Remarks, page 16), the examiner disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Lefebvre provides teachings of a mirror to direct light to the photoelectrochemical cell (paragraph [0080]). Lefebvre provides motivation of the mirror increase incident light on the optically pervious material by channeling light towards the photoelectrochemical cell (paragraph [0080]). Mohr provides teachings of inner surfaces designed to reflect light (paragraphs [0108],[0110]). Mohr provides motivation of improving light conditions of the reactor using reflectors provided above a light-conducting liquid or above a container to guide or collect light to the liquid (paragraph [0110]). Tanaka provides teachings of a lid having a reflector (paragraphs [0035],[0149],[0150]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 includes a reflective coating. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving direction and concentration of light to the chamber. There is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 16, second full paragraph, “Paragraph [0037] explains that the reflective coating is specifically employed to preserve ultraviolet light within the chamber and improve photoreactor efficiency”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 14 (Remarks, pages 16-17), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the new limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mass (US 5151252A).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 15, specifically that the cited art does not teach or suggest Applicant's specific mobile-device spectrophotometric arrangement having a light source within the claimed wavelength range integrated into the photoreactor system (Remarks, page 17), the examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lefebvre provides teachings and suggestions of UV artificial light or sunlight as a source of light and having a wavelength of more than 300 nm (paragraphs [0042], [0180]) and Kim provides teachings of wavelengths of light for generating a photocatalytic reaction, such as white light, i.e. including wavelengths between 570 and 590 nm (paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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: the photoreactor system of Claim 3, further comprising a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength between 570 nm 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]). Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 17, specifically that the Examiner's reliance on side inlets generally does not teach the claimed placement and backflow-mitigation configuration (Remarks, page 17), the examiner disagrees. Lefebvre further teaches the photoreactor system of Claim 1, further comprising a hydrogen peroxide inlet disposed on the interior surface of the sidewall at a height (Fig. 2C teaches a solution inlet disposed along the sidewall of the system at a height, which implies at inlet disposed on the interior surface of the reactor at a height corresponding to the solution inlet shown, wherein the inlet 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) configured 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)).
Regarding the limitation of “militate against backflow”, a recitation of the intended use or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or function, then it meets the claim. As discussed above, 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)
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 18, specifically that the Examiner's reliance on general reflective elements or optical measurement devices fails to address the claimed placement of the reflective plate inside the photoreactor chamber in relation to both the ultraviolet light source and the view port and a modification is not design choice where the claimed configuration affects operation or performance (Remarks, pages 17-18), the examiner disagrees. Note that upon further consideration of the amended claim, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hermersdorf et al. (DE 102017213865 A1; see machine translation) and Ryu et al. (US 20200017375 A1).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hermersdorf provides teachings of a spectrometric device, such as a smartphone, with a view port (paragraph [0033]) and motivation of the view port for guiding light to a detection unit (paragraph [0033]) and the holding structure that allows for the spectrometer to be arranged at a predetermined position by a positioning device (paragraph [0028]). Mohr and Ryu provides teachings of inner surfaces designed to reflect light (Mohr, paragraphs [0042],[0108],[0110]; Ryu, paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system 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 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 and a view port. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of improving efficacy of photocatalytic reactions and improving direction of light towards a desired optical port. Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 19 (Remarks, page 18), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the new limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lefebvre in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson et al. (US 20170225973 A1) and Araiza et al. (US 20070181509 A1).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20, specifically that the cited art does not teach or suggest this specific adhesive-supported and exposed-photocatalyst configuration in the context of the claimed photoreactor and the rejection is based upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Remarks, page 18), the examiner disagrees.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Buskirk provides teachings and motivation of: adhesive material used to promote bonding of a powder to a support (paragraph [0063]); and a 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 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 an adhesive is applied to the interior surface of the chamber and the photocatalyst material is disposed over the adhesive such that the photocatalyst material remains exposed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully promoting bonding of the catalyst coating to the chamber of the system while ensuring the catalyst is properly exposed and disposed within the chamber of the system. Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed arrangement in order to adhere photocatalyst material over an adhesive in the interior surface of the chamber.
In response to applicant’s arguments: that the cited combinations, taken as a whole, would require substantial reconstruction of the primary reference; the rejections are based on hindsight; the Office Action does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined these disparate features into a single system having the amended claim 1 architecture; the proposed combinations are not predictable uses according to their established functions; and the Office Action does not establish that these features would have been combined with a reasonable expectation of success in the claimed manner (Remarks, page 19), the examiner disagrees.
As discussed in detail above, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as elaborated in detail above and in the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the references to arrive at the claimed limitations with a reasonable expectation of success without changing the intended purpose of Lefebvre of a system for degradation by photocatalysis.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights