DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by OCHI et al. (US 2018/0244543 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, OCHI discloses a fluid sterilization device 10 including an overall housing 12 (i.e., a filtration housing) defining a flow passage 13, a filter 40 (i.e., a filtration media block positioned within the filtration housing), and a light source 50 (i.e., an electromagnetic radiation module positioned within the filtration housing… positioned adjacent to the filtration media block; FIG. 1, copied below; p0024). The housing 12 further includes first housing 20 and second housing 30 encompassing first and second flow passages 23 and 33, respectively (i.e., surfaces in the first and second flow passages 23 and 33 define an inner surface; p0025); first housing 20 includes inflow end 21 (i.e., a water inlet), and second housing 30 includes outflow end 31 (i.e., a water outlet; p0025).
The filter 40 comprises hollow fibers 42 (i.e., the filtration media block having a hollow cylindrical configuration) with a potted end 44 ending at the second housing 30 (p0029). Wiring/power for the light source 50 extends through the first housing and the potted hollow fibers 42 and through the potted end 44 (i.e., the filtration media block… defining a radiation passageway; p0030). As can be further seen in the provided figure, influent water through inflow end 21 can flow between the hollow fibers 42 of the filter 40 and the cylindrical walls of the overall housing 12 (i.e., the filtration media block being spaced apart from the inner surface of the filtration housing to define an inlet passageway radially exterior of the radiation passageway). Light source 50 includes a light emitting device 52 (i.e., an electromagnetic radiation source), sealing window 44, and reflector 56 and provides ultraviolet light toward any fluid flow in the second housing 30 (p0020). The claimed “radiation passageway” is broadly interpreted to include the support structure 26 carrying the wiring for the light source 50 and extending along the axial direction through the second flow passage 33 to the outflow end 31 (see dashed line indicated in the annotated figure).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox ((radiation passageway))][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (LIGHT SOURCE (EM radiation module))][AltContent: textbox (SECOND FLOW PASSAGE)][AltContent: textbox (OUTFLOW END (water outlet))][AltContent: textbox (FIRST FLOW PASSAGE)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox ((inner surfaces))][AltContent: textbox (POTTED END)][AltContent: textbox (HOLLOW FIBERS)][AltContent: textbox (FILTER (filtration media block))][AltContent: textbox (INFLOW END (water inlet))]
PNG
media_image1.png
112
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
During operation, fluid flowing in via the inflow end 21 enters the overall housing 12 in a direction normal to the proximal and distal ends of the housing and normal to the potted end 44 and passes through filter 40 in first flow passage 23; then, filtered fluid passes through the second flow passage 33 and is sterilized by UV irradiation from light source 50 and exits through the outflow end 31 (i.e., wherein water enters the water inlet of the filtration housing, flows through at least a portion of the inlet passageway, then flows in a direction normal to the inner surface of the filtration housing and through one or more walls of the filtration media block for treatment, then into the radiation passageway for further treatment by the electromagnetic radiation source, before exiting the water outlet of the filtration housing; p0034-0035).
The limitation of “[a] water filtration assembly for an appliance” is directed toward a preamble limitation that is considered to have no patentable weight. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (MPEP 2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 2, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. OCHI further discloses the filter 40 comprises hollow fibers 42 (i.e., the filtration media block comprises at least one of an activated carbon (AC) block, a zeolite, a non-woven and textile block, an immobilized granulated media, an ion exchange resin block, a membrane, a hollow fiber, or a composite block; p0029).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. OCHI further discloses the LED emits wavelength 260-270 nm (p0031), which is recognized as UVC light (i.e., the electromagnetic radiation source is an electromagnetic radiation emitter that emits germicidal radiation via at least one of an ultraviolet-C (UVC) emitting diode, a blue light emitting diode (LED), an ultraviolet-A (UV A) emitting diode, or an ultraviolet-B (UVB) emitting diode (Claim 3); the electromagnetic radiation source emits germicidal radiation via an ultraviolet-C (UVC) bulb positioned within the radiation passageway (Claim 9)).
Regarding Claim 4, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 3. As shown in the below annotated FIG. 1, a first end cap is generally located toward the left end of the housing 12 (i.e., a first end cap secured to a first end of the filtration media block); OCHI further discloses the hollow fibers 42 ending at a potted end 44 fixed with sealant 46 (i.e., a second end cap secured to a second end of the filtration media block, the second end cap extending from an inner surface of the filtration housing to divide an inner volume of the filtration housing into a first region and a second region, wherein the electromagnetic radiation module is positioned within the first region and the filtration media block is situated within the second region; p0029).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (FILTER (filtration media block))][AltContent: textbox ((second region))][AltContent: textbox (LIGHT SOURCE (EM radiation module))][AltContent: textbox ((first region))][AltContent: textbox (FIRST FLOW PASSAGE)][AltContent: textbox (POTTED END (second end cap))][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox ((first end cap))]
PNG
media_image1.png
112
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 4. OCHI further discloses the light source 50 includes sealing window 54 having the shape a lens to adjust light distribution from the LED 52 before passing downstream through the second fluid passage 33 (i.e., a lens arranged adjacent to the electromagnetic radiation emitter such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electromagnetic radiation emitter passes through the lens before treating the water in the radiation passageway; p0032).
Regarding Claim 8, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 4. As shown in FIG. 1, light source 50 protrudes from the potted end 44 and sealant 46 of the hollow fibers 42 (i.e., the electromagnetic radiation source is positioned at least partially through the second end cap; p0029).
Regarding Claim 10, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 1, the housing 12 includes a first end and a second end generally indicated at inflow end 21 and at potted end 44 at which the light source 50 is located (i.e., the filtration housing comprises a first end and a second end; the second end receiving at least a portion of the electromagnetic radiation module).
The limitation requiring that “the first end [secures] to a wall of the appliance” is directed toward an intended use of the claimed water filtration assembly. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). Whether the disclosed device is attached to an appliance or not, the disclosed device will function as claimed and as taught by the prior art, i.e., there is no criticality or non-obvious effect in requiring the first end be secured to the wall of an appliance.
Regarding Claim 11, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. OCHI further discloses a reflector 56 within the light source 50 within the second housing 30 and in the second flow passage 33 (i.e., a reflective
sleeve positioned within the radiation passageway; p0030, 0033). Reflector 56 reflects UV light from the LED 52 toward the downstream side of the second flow passage 33 (i.e., the reflective sleeve configured to reflect radiation rays; p0033).
Regarding Claim 12, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 11. OCHI further discloses the reflector 56 comprises a material with high UV reflectivity, including aluminum and polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., the reflective sleeve is constructed of at least one of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or aluminum; p0033).
Regarding Claim 14, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. The instant limitation requiring that “the appliance comprises at least one of a refrigerator appliance, an icemaker appliance, a dishwasher appliance, a water purifier appliance, a beverage system appliance, or washing machine appliance” is directed toward a limitation that has no patentable weight. The claimed invention is directed toward a “water filtration assembly”, not the appliance to which the water filtration assembly is connected, i.e., the intended use of the claimed assembly for a specific appliance is not subject to patentability. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II). In any case, the limitation lists “a water purifier appliance” as one of the possible options—whatever surface the prior art-disclosed device is attached to or associated with is broadly considered to be a “water purifier appliance”.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is alternatively rejected and Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCHI et al. (US 2018/0244543 A1), as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of SMETONA et al. (US 2017/0101328 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 4. OCHI further discloses the light source 50 includes sealing window 54 having the shape a lens to adjust light distribution from the LED 52 before passing downstream through the second fluid passage 33 (p0032). OCHI is deficient in disclosing a lens arranged adjacent to the electromagnetic radiation emitter such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electromagnetic radiation emitter passes through the lens before treating the water in the radiation passageway.
SMETONA ‘328 discloses an ultraviolet transparent enclosure for disinfecting a fluid; the enclosure includes an inlet and an outlet and is transparent to a set of ultraviolet radiation sources located adjacent the enclosure (abstract). To maximize the ultraviolet disinfection of the fluid, SMETONA ‘328 teaches that the total internal reflectance (TIR) of the UV radiation requires a degree of collimation of the UV radiation, e.g., through the use of a lens (p0051). For instance, an ultraviolet transparent domain 110 of an ultraviolet transparent enclosure 108 is fitted with a lens opposite a reflective domain 112 to focus UV radiation onto whatever matter that requires disinfection (i.e., a lens arranged adjacent to the electromagnetic radiation emitter such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electromagnetic radiation emitter passes through the lens before treating the water in the radiation passageway; p0068; FIG. 15). Advantageously, the use of a collimating lens allows for the TIR of UV radiation, i.e., a more effective treatment (p0051). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a lens arranged adjacent to the electromagnetic radiation emitter such that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electromagnetic radiation emitter passes through the lens before treating the water in the radiation passageway as taught by SMETONA ‘328 for the water filtration assembly disclosed by OCHI
Regarding Claim 6, modified OCHI makes obvious the water filtration assembly of Claim 5. SMETONA ‘328 discloses matter being treated in the ultraviolet transparent enclosure 108 is separated from the set of ultraviolet radiation sources by an ultraviolet transparent domain 110 comprising a lens (i.e., the lens is configured to fluidly isolate the filtration media block from the electromagnetic radiation module; p0068; FIG. 15).
Regarding Claim 7, modified OCHI makes obvious the water filtration assembly of Claim 5. SMETONA ‘328 discloses the use of a lens to provide collimation of UV light (i.e., the lens is one of a collimating lens or a converging lens; p0051).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCHI et al. (US 2018/0244543 A1) in view of SMETONA et al. (US 2019/0135659 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, OCHI discloses the water filtration assembly of Claim 1. OCHI is deficient in disclosing the assembly further comprises one or more flow barriers arranged within the radiation passageway to direct the water exiting the one or more walls of the filtration media block towards the electromagnetic radiation source and back through a length of the radiation passageway.
SMETONA ‘659 discloses a UV disinfection system comprising a disinfection chamber, the chamber further comprising a set of ultraviolet radiation sources configured to emit ultraviolet radiation toward an inner chamber (p0012). As shown in FIGs. 5A and 6C, the disinfection chamber 30A comprises an inner cylindrical chamber 34 formed of a UV transparent material inserted into an outer cylindrical chamber 32 comprising a reflective material, e.g. aluminum-based material or polytetrafluoroethylene (p0062; FIG. 5A). SMETONA ‘659 further shows in FIG. 12A a plurality of wall barriers 68 that cause fluid to flow in a serpentine path 70 through disinfection chamber 30J (i.e., further comprising one or more flow barriers arranged within the radiation passageway to direct the water exiting the one or more walls of the filtration media block towards the electromagnetic radiation source and back through a length of the radiation passageway; p0073; FIG. 12A). Advantageously, such flow barriers prolong the disinfection treatment of fluid by the UV light to provide a more efficient disinfection (p0073). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide flow barriers as taught by SMETONA ‘659 in the radiation passageway of the water filtration assembly taught by OCHI.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 15 October 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 October 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the as-amended claim adding the limitation that the water that enters the filtration housing flowing through at least a portion of the inlet passageway “then flows in a direction normal to the inner surface of the filtration housing and through one or more walls of the filtration media block for treatment” and subsequently into the radiation passageway is not taught by or obvious over the prior art of record (pg. 6-7). Applicant further cites that FIG. 5 of the application shows this claimed limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is appreciated that FIG. 5 of the application clarifies the intent of Applicant’s invention, the as-amended claims do not accurately or specifically claim the invention as intended in the figure. It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies 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).
Applicant has not specifically defined the metes and bounds of what they consider “the inner surface” of the filtration housing. As claimed, “the inner surface” is broadly a component of the filtration housing—there is no requirement that the inner surface is only limited to the internal surface of the overall shell of the filtration housing. For example, if the filtration housing encompasses a number of baffles or walls, the surfaces on these baffles and walls are also considered to be part of “the inner surface” of the filtration housing in that they are contained inside the filtration housing and therefore, are “inner surfaces”. Even further, the wall through which an inlet enters would also be considered an inner surface as would the wall opposite the inlet; any fluid entering the housing through this inlet would thus already be flowing “in a direction normal to the inner surface of the filtration housing”. Using Applicant’s FIG. 5 as an example, Applicant explains that the claimed “inner surface” is limited to 152 of filtration housing 112; however, filtration housing 112 also contains a second end cap 150 that includes an “inner surface” in the filtration housing (i.e., the right side of the end cap):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the prior art OCHI, during operation, fluid flowing in via the inflow end 21 enters the overall housing 12 in a direction normal to the proximal and distal ends of the housing and normal to the potted end 44 and passes through filter 40 in first flow passage 23; then, filtered fluid passes through the second flow passage 33 and is sterilized by UV irradiation from light source 50 and exits through the outflow end 31. Such a disclosure reads on all relevant limitations of the as-amended claim. In a separate but related embodiment, OCHI even shows the inflow end 121 includes an inflow pipe 124 that extends in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the housing (see FIG. 2, p0038-0040), i.e., such a geometry explicitly reads on the claimed language as intended as argued for Applicant’s FIG. 5: “wherein water enters the water inlet of the filtration housing, flows through at least a portion of the inlet passageway, then flows in a direction normal to the inner surface of the filtration housing”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777