DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/27/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim.
The remarks argue that Stokes only teaches curved and concave shapes and teaches away from embodiments having internal corners. However, it is noted that Stokes generally teaches a cube without internal “corners”, which requires some kind of internal curve, but the size of the curve/inner filet is not specified, and even a minimal filet radius would meet the design criteria to achieve the technical effect as set forth by Stokes ([0015]).
To restate, the flow cell 12 must not have internal “corners,” and every point on the interior surface should be visible front every other point on the interior surface. Ovoids, ellipsoids, cubes with rounded corners, etc. all fit these criteria.
In comparison, applicant’s invention shows examples where a rounded corner is not explicitly shown (e.g. fig 2). However, in practice, it was well known in the art that some degree of corner rounding commonly occurs during manufacturing (e.g. during bending, molding, welding, etc), that would not have materially affected the general intended operation of invention. Furthermore, the use of sharp corners with zero internal rounding was not disclosed in the specification to convey any special technical effect compared with a shape having slightly rounded corners. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to account for small manufacturing variations where the differences are virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Further, the claims are broad enough to read on cross-sections being of the outer extent of the flow cell. Further the claims are broad enough to read on taking the cross-section just downstream of the outlet end of the flow cell (defining the entire assembly as the casing), wherein the shape of the downstream conduit would have been an obvious design choice.
The remarks argue that the rounded cube of Stokes does not teach a casing comprising four walls each having a curved profile in longitudinal section with concavity facing inward. However, the four lateral walls of the cube would each comprise straight and curved sections with concavity facing inward. The curved profile is broad enough to read on curved shapes comprising straight portions, and is also broad enough to read on just the curved portions, defining that as the walls.
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
PNG
media_image1.png
281
1244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tribelsky et al. (US 20070272877 A1) [hereinafter Tribelsky].
Regarding claim 1, Tribelsky teaches a device for disinfecting a fluid in a conduit comprising:
a casing (see outside of container housing fig 19) adapted to be connected to at least a portion of said conduit (see attached to upstream and downstream portions) and having a longitudinal axis (e.g. left to right in fig 19); and
at least one source of UV-C radiation (see 190, mercury lamp, claim 14) housed in the casing,
wherein the casing has a reflective inner surface (e.g. 199, inside 192, claim 14, etc) wherein the casing has a square cross-section (see e.g. [0077]) and comprises four walls (see four of the walls in fig 19) having a longitudinal section with a curved profile (e.g. in 199, in curve of pipe from left to right in fig 19, in diameter of pipe in a curved section, etc) with the concavity facing an interior of the casing (see fig 19).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes et al. (US 20170290943 A1) [hereinafter Stokes].
Regarding claim 1, Stokes teaches a device for disinfecting a fluid in a conduit comprising:
a casing (see e.g. fig 1: 12) adapted to be connected to at least a portion of said conduit (see e.g. 16) and having a longitudinal axis (top to bottom in fig 1); and
at least one source of UV-C radiation (see 260nm, [0020,34]) housed in the casing (see 20),
wherein the casing has a reflective inner surface (see [0015], e.g. fig 1),
Stokes may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the casing has a square cross-section and comprises four walls.
However, Stokes teaches that the flow cell casing may be constructed from different shapes besides a sphere, including a shape with a square cross-section (see cube with rounded corners, [0015], which will naturally comprise an inner cross-section of a square with rounded corners), and comprising four walls having said curved profile in longitudinal section (see cube with rounded corners, [0015]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the shape of the flow cell, including the use of a cube with rounded corners, for example to simplify construction or better fit in a space, in the manner taught by Stokes.
Stokes may fail to explicitly disclose the casing having a square cross-section without rounded corners. However, it is noted that for casings designed to have exactly square cross-sections that meet at a sharp angle, some degree of rounding was well understood to be a common and natural result of bending, welding, molding, or otherwise forming the angled sides of the casing. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to account for small manufacturing variations where the differences are virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Furthermore, the claims are sufficiently broad to read on the external cross-sectional shape of the casing being substantially square with corners, which would have been obvious as a routine design choice in the art, for example to provide easier interfacing with mounts supporting the corners. Alternately, it would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the shape of the outlet pipe portion, including a pipe having a square cross section, as a routine skill in the art, for example to route the liquid or gas through a particular room space. Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Stokes teaches the source (see Stokes, fig 1: 20) is arranged in proximity to at least one of the side walls of the casing (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Stokes teaches the source (see Stokes, fig 1: 20) is disposed within a reflector (see fig 1: 14, inside surface of 12, claim 1, [0030]) defining a cavity open towards the inside of the casing (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Stokes teaches the reflector (see Stokes, 14, inside surface of 12, [0030]) defines a recess of at least one of the side walls of the casing (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Stokes teaches the source is an excimer lamp or includes one or more LEDs (see Stokes, fig 1).
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bonansinga (US 20230158187 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bonansinga teaches a device for disinfecting a fluid in a conduit comprising:
a casing (see e.g. casing in fig 5a) adapted to be connected to at least a portion of said conduit (see e.g. conduit formed between levels of shelves, e.g. between fig 5c: 534a,b; alternately e.g. gaseously connected to stethoscope, [0004]) and having a longitudinal axis (e.g. defining as left to right in fig 5c); and
at least one source of UV-C radiation (see mercury lamp, 532, [0047]) housed in the casing,
wherein the casing has a reflective inner surface (e.g. [0094-95]) wherein the casing has a square cross-section (see figs 5a-c) and comprises four walls having a longitudinal section with a curved profile (e.g. at 4 corners, [0095]) with the concavity facing an interior of the casing (see figs 5a,c).
Bonansinga teaches the shape can be a rectangular prism (see e.g. [0094]) but may fail to explicitly disclose the casing has a square cross section. However, Bonansinga teaches flexibly adjusting the interior chamber to form different shapes as desired (see [0095]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the dimensions of the chamber and/or the outer dimensions of the device, as a routine skill in the art to accommodate different objects and/or fit inside of a given room. Although the embodiment does not recite the same structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Bonansinga teaches the source is arranged in proximity to at least one of the side walls of the casing (see Bonansinga, figs 5a,c).
Regarding claim 6, Bonansinga teaches the source is disposed within a reflector (see Bonansinga, [0095], e.g. curved edges or portions of interior) defining a cavity open towards the inside of the casing (see figs 5a,c).
Regarding claim 7, Bonansinga teaches the reflector (see Bonansinga, [0095], figs 5a,c) defines a recess of at least one of the side walls of the casing (see figs 5a,c).
Regarding claim 8, Bonansinga teaches the source is a mercury vapor discharge lamp (see Bonansinga, [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Bonansinga teaches the source is an excimer lamp or includes one or more LEDs (see Bonansinga, [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Bonansinga teaches the source is an elongated cylindrical lamp having an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis of the casing (see Bonansinga, fig 5a,c: 532).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881