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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejections using the same prior art references in different combinations.
On page 6 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the Specification objection. The Examiner notes that the references listed in this section are application numbers, not publication numbers, so the objection still stands because the Examiner requests publication numbers as well.
On page 6, Applicant also discusses the previous 112 rejections on the claims, stating that the amendments made to the claims obviate these rejections. The Examiner notes that these rejections have been withdrawn as a result, but notes that new 112 rejections have been made based on the amendments added to independent Claim 1.
On pages 6-8, Applicant then discusses the previous 103 prior art rejections to the claims, specifically with regard to independent Claim 1. Applicant summarizes the invention of previous anticipatory reference, now primary reference, Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages). Here, Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose amended independent Claim 1 in the present arrangement. In particular, Applicant again argues that primary reference Axmann would not disclose a configuration of the sterilization container with the inlet and outlet on opposite ends of the container, because allegedly the geometric profiles in each embodiment are “separately optimized to achieve two separate functions”. Applicant argues that the first embodiment utilizing a conic orientation with the inlet and outlet on the same side, uses an initial irradiation and a second narrow channel using smoother flow to allow homogenous sterilization, while the second embodiment uses an interior egg or spheroid body within a larger cylinder to realize a turbulent flow. Applicant continues to assert that the two different embodiments prioritize different functions, and combining the two embodiments would result in two parallel disinfection channels, in which the narrower channel would be allegedly detrimentally affected by the non-streamlined sharp-edged geometric profile at the wider, bottom end of the housing and container. The Examiner notes that the embodiments do not explicitly state such a focus on these characteristics asserted by Applicant. The Examiner also notes upon further review of Axmann that these embodiments do not explicitly teach away from each other. In order for a reference or embodiment to teach away from an initial reference or embodiment, the initial reference or embodiment must state or make clear that the modifying feature must not be pursued because it would have an explicit negative effect on the invention. Since no such recitations exist, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
Applicant continues to argue that the different shaped container of Figure 3 is “incompatible” with the unidirectional flow of the second embodiment because it would result in two separate flow channels, which is allegedly detrimental to realization of uniform sterilization because the profiles of the two channels thus formed differ significantly from each other. The Examiner notes that the profiles of the two channels do not change based on the modification provided, since they were always presented as a conic shape and a thinner, concentric channel. Such an assertion would indicate that this embodiment would not be viable in the first place to use two different profiles, just placed in series versus parallel. The Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive because the LEDs are placed in the interior channel as well in this modification making sure that each parallel channel gets treated.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues against the combination of secondary reference Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), with Axmann, because the unit support assembly of Livne uses nested coiled pipes with specific features for supporting these pipes and lighting elements. Applicant also notes that multiple supporting elements are required to carry out this process, using elements like support frames with sliding elements to slide on guide tracks for the pipes and lighting elements. Applicant argues that these elements are “intricately” connected to the use of coiled pipes, so one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to integrate the supporting assembly of Livne with the apparatus of Axmann, without significant changes to the design of the supporting assembly. The Examiner notes Livne teaches that the components are translated relative to one another for the reason of removing and replacing concentric elements inside. The Examiner also notes that Axmann states a gap can be adjusted with the two concentric channels. The Examiner also finds that the features disclosed in Axmann do not exclude the addition of other components that may be necessary to facilitate actual operation of the devices. Not every screw or bolt involved in the securing of such an apparatus is necessary to demonstrate the core concept of the invention. Providing features such as sliding rails for the concentric channels would allow the gap to be adjusted while also providing for replacement of any components as taught in Livne. For these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
Applicant points to Figures 4 and 3 of Axmann, reiterating the points made above, but the Examiner notes that the teaching of parallel concentric flow from Figures 1 and 2 to combine with Figure 3 aligns with the sliding rails and translation of the various concentric components as taught in Livne. For these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remark here unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please also insert the patent publication number and dates of the applications listed in the section “Cross-Reference to Related Applications”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 and their dependent claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5 recite the limitation “walls”, “a wall of the container”, “a wall of a displaceable body”, and “one of the walls”. It is not clear if these limitations are the same as “a wall of the container” and “a wall of a displaceable body” already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-7, 12-15, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555).
Regarding Claims 1-7 & 12-15, a first embodiment (Embodiment 1) of Axmann discloses a device for sterilizing a fluid flowing through by means of UV radiation, (Abstract, Figure 3), comprising: a container, (Bell 8, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), having an inlet for receiving the fluid, (Inlet 13, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), and having an outlet for discharging the fluid from the container, (Outlet 16, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), wherein an irradiation zone for irradiation of the fluid is provided inside the container, (Bell 8, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), a multiplicity of radiation sources, each of which is configured to emit light having wavelengths in a range of UV radiation, into the irradiation zone, (LEDs 11, 12, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), wherein the irradiation zone is formed as a gap formed between a wall of the container and a wall of a displaceable body arranged within the container, wherein the container is designed for the fluid to flow through the gap from the inlet to the outlet, (Interior of Bell 8 (container) and Gap a over Outside of Truncated Cone (displaceable body) 10, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]), and wherein the irradiation zone is designed for a gap dimension of the gap to be variable, (See paragraphs [0024], [0028] & [0029]; gap a varies).
Embodiment 1 of Axmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is designed to vary the gap dimension by displacing the displaceable body in relation to the wall of the container along a longitudinal axis extending from the inlet to the outlet, a displaceable body in relation to the wall of the container, so that the gap dimension changes uniformly inside the irradiation zone; wherein the inlet and the outlet are provided at opposite ends of the container, wherein the radiation sources are arranged both on the wall of the container and on a wall of the displaceable body facing the wall of the container.
Embodiment 2 of Axmann discloses wherein the inlet and the outlet are provided at opposite ends of the container, (Inlet Channel 24 and Drain Channel 26 located on opposite sides of Cylinder 17, See Figure 4, See paragraphs [0030] & [0031], Axmann; or See Figure 2, See paragraph [0028], Axmann), and wherein the radiation sources are arranged both on the wall of the container and on a wall of the displaceable body facing the wall of the container, (LED arrays 19 embedded in flow body 18 (displaceable body), and LED arrays 17 on inside of cylinder (container), See Figure 4, See paragraph [0030], Axmann; or See Figure 2, See paragraph [0028], Axmann).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Axmann by incorporating wherein the inlet and the outlet are provided at opposite ends of the container and wherein the radiation sources are arranged both on the wall of the container and on a wall of the displaceable body facing the wall of the container as in Embodiment 2 of Axmann because “a continuous lateral relative displacement of the liquid layer formed in the gap…necessarily lengthens the passage though [the] gap” and “simultaneously increases the exposure time of the UVC radiation and enhances the disinfection effect”, (See paragraph [0031], Axmann).
Livne discloses wherein the device is designed to vary the gap dimension by displacing the displaceable body in relation to the wall of the container along a longitudinal axis extending from the inlet to the outlet, (See Figures 28, 37, & See Figure 3, inlet 31a and outlet 31b at opposite longitudinal ends, See paragraphs [0032], [0194], [0348] & [0349], Livne).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating wherein the device is designed to vary the gap dimension by displacing the displaceable body in relation to the wall of the container along a longitudinal axis extending from the inlet to the outlet as in Livne for “allowing thereby access to the [container or displaceable body]”, (See paragraph [0032], Livne), for “removal and replacement of different elements…without disassembling the whole unit”, (See paragraph [0251], Livne).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gap is formed by walls arranged facing one another, and wherein a distance between the walls is variable, (Gap a between Bell 8 and Truncated Bell 10, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann; gap a varies).
Claim 3: The device as claimed in claim 2, wherein one of the walls arranged facing one another is a wall of the container, (Inherent Wall of Bell 8, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 4: The device as claimed in claim 2, wherein one of the walls arranged facing one another is a wall of a displaceable body which is arranged at least partially inside the container, (Inherent Wall of Truncated Cone Bell 10, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 5: The device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the shapes of the walls arranged facing one another are matched to one another so that the gap between the walls is formed uniformly at least in sections, inside an entire irradiation zone, (Gap a between inherent walls of Bell 8 and Truncated Bell 10, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 6: The device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the gap dimension changes uniformly inside the irradiation zone, (See Figures 28, 37, See paragraphs [0032], [0348] & [0349], Livne).
Claim 7: The device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the displaceable body is mechanically coupled to the displacement unit, for example by the displaceable body being supported movably in a linear guide rail, (Guide Tracks 441/443, See Figures 28, 29A/B, See paragraphs [0348], [0349], Livne).
Claim 12: The device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the displaceable body has, at least in sections, a shape of a wedge or cone or a plane wall, (Inherent Wall of Truncated Cone Bell 10, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 13: The device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the plane wall is displaceable through an opening in a wall of the container transversely with respect to the flow direction of the fluid flowing through the gap-shaped irradiation zone and toward an oppositely arranged other wall of the container, wherein the gap-shaped irradiation zone is formed between an end side of the displaceable wall and an oppositely arranged wall, and wherein the gap dimension can be varied by displacement of the displaceable wall, (Inherent Wall of Truncated Cone Bell 10 and its gap with Bell 8 in which gap is variable, Bell 10 is placed through opening in wall/flange of Bell 8, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 14: The device as claimed in claim 1, having a first plane wall, which is displaceable through an opening in a first wall of the container, and having a second plane wall, which is displaceable through an opening in a second wall of the container, wherein the first plane wall and the second plane wall are arranged so that they face one another respectively with respective end sides, and wherein the irradiation zone having the gap dimension is formed between the respective end sides of the two displaceable walls, (Inherent Walls of Truncated Cone Bell 10 and their gap with Bell 8 in which gap is variable, Bell 10 is placed through opening in wall/flange of Bell 8, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029], Axmann).
Claim 15: The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the container, the walls, and/or the body consists or consist at least partially of a material that is transparent for the light emitted by the radiation sources, (See paragraph [0029]; two glass layers 10.1 and 10.2 of Cone bell 10, Axmann).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Axmann discloses a method for sterilizing a flowing fluid, comprising: providing a device as claimed in claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1 above); connecting the inlet of the device to a source of the fluid and connecting the multiplicity of radiation sources to an electrical energy supply source, (Inlet 13 , LEDs 11/12, and power supply, See Figure 3, See paragraph [0029]); delivering the fluid into the container through the inlet, (Fluid through Inlet 13, See Figure 3, Axmann); letting the fluid flow through the irradiation zone and irradiating the fluid with the UV radiation, of the radiation sources, (See paragraph [0029]); and adapting the gap dimension of the irradiation zone to at least one property of the fluid, (See paragraph [0024], Axmann).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Traubenberg et al., (“Traubenberg”, US 6,646,269).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the displaceable body is magnetically coupled to the displacement unit through the container.
Traubenberg discloses wherein the displaceable body is magnetically coupled to the displacement unit through the container, (See column 3, lines 12-26, See column 37-51, Traubenberg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating wherein the displaceable body is magnetically coupled to the displacement unit through the container as in Traubenberg so it "meets with significantly less frictional resistance to initial movement" and "obviate the need for a supplementary support", (See column 9, lines 27-4, Traubenberg).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Maarschalkerweerd, (US 5,418,370).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the displacement unit is designed to allow displacement of the displaceable body by a force of the flowing fluid.
Maarschalkerweerd discloses a displacement unit is designed to allow displacement of the displaceable body by a force of a flowing fluid, (See column 9, lines 6-61; pistons/cylinders drive and are driven by fluid movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating wherein the displacement unit is designed to allow displacement of the displaceable body by a force of the flowing fluid as in Maarschalkerweerd in order to provide “a desired relatively high flow rate….and hydraulic head losses minimized” and “simplified maintenance”, (See column 8, lines 57-64, Maarschalkerweerd).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Maarschalkerweerd, (US 5,418,370), in further view of Henderson et al., (“Henderson”, US 2017/0225971).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the displacement unit comprises a bypass for the fluid, and wherein the bypass is designed to convey the fluid to a rear side of the displaceable body facing away from the inlet.
Henderson discloses a displacement unit comprises a bypass for the fluid, and wherein the bypass is designed to convey the fluid to a rear side of the displaceable body facing away from the inlet, (See paragraphs [0060], [0188], [0191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating a displacement unit comprises a bypass for the fluid, and wherein the bypass is designed to convey the fluid to a rear side of the displaceable body facing away from the inlet as in Henderson in order to “selectively control the passage of liquid through an individual apparatus” and “flow…can be interrupted in order to render the liquid static in the apparatus for period of time” and “can be recommended when the liquid to be treated has had sufficient exposure to UV radiation”, (See paragraph [0192], Henderson).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Hillman, (US 4,336,223), in further view of Traubenberg et al., (“Traubenberg”, US 6,646,269), in further view of Lee et al., (“Lee”, US 2015/0239751).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the body is suspended inside the container by means of damping or restoring elements.
Lee discloses wherein the body is suspended inside the container by means of damping or restoring elements, (See paragraphs [0141] & [0143], Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating wherein the body is suspended inside the container by means of damping or restoring elements as in Lee so that it “thus compensates for the abrasion, whereby the airtightness….can be also ensured”, (See paragraph [0141], Lee).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Hillman, (US 4,336,223).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a sensor configured to measure a property of the fluid.
Hillman discloses further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid, (See column 4, lines 21-33, Hillman). Additional features of this embodiment are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid as in Hillman so that “fluid characteristics as well as the condition of the lamps and the intensity of the radiation penetrating the fluid will function to control the fluid flow rate to insure proper sterilization of the fluid”, (See column 12, lines 32-45, Hillman).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Axmann discloses the method as claimed in claim 18, additionally comprising using an adjustment to adapt the gap dimension, but does not disclose: measuring the at least one property of the fluid, with aid of a sensor, and using a measurement signal of the sensor.
Hillman discloses further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid, and using a measurement signal of the sensor (See column 4, lines 21-33, Hillman). Additional features of this embodiment are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid as in Hillman so that “fluid characteristics as well as the condition of the lamps and the intensity of the radiation penetrating the fluid will function to control the fluid flow rate to insure proper sterilization of the fluid”, (See column 12, lines 32-45, Hillman).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Hillman, (US 4,336,223), in further view of Traubenberg et al., (“Traubenberg”, US 6,646,269).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Axmann discloses the device as claimed in claim 6, but does not disclose further comprising a sensor configured to measure a property of the fluid, or wherein the displaceable body is driven based on a measurement signal from the sensor.
Hillman discloses further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid, (See column 4, lines 21-33, Hillman). Additional features of this embodiment are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating further comprising a sensor which is designed to measure a property of the fluid as in Hillman so that “fluid characteristics as well as the condition of the lamps and the intensity of the radiation penetrating the fluid will function to control the fluid flow rate to insure proper sterilization of the fluid”, (See column 12, lines 32-45, Hillman).
Modified Axmann does not disclose wherein the displaceable body is driven based on a measurement signal from the sensor.
Traubenberg discloses wherein the displaceable body is driven based on a measurement signal from the sensor, (See column 1, lines 37-43, See column 8, lines 65-67, column 9, lines 1-26, Traubenberg). Additional features of this disclosure are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating wherein the displaceable body is driven based on a measurement signal from the sensor as in Traubenberg because the “exterior of radation source assemblies will become fouled with undesired materials”, (See column 9, lines 1-3, Traubenberg), which then will “urge and translate slidable member” to “operate to remove undesired materials from the exterior of radiation source assemblies in a reciprocal manner”, (See column 9, lines 17-21, Traubenberg).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmann et al., DE 102014015642, (“Axmann”, “Machine Translation of DE102014015642”, published 2016, 28 total pages), in view of Livne et al., (“Livne”, US 2017/0303555), in further view of Hillman, (US 4,336,223), in further view of Traubenberg et al., (“Traubenberg”, US 6,646,269), in further view of Moore, (US 2020/0317536).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Axmann discloses the method as claimed in claim 18, with an outlet, but does not disclose additionally comprising: returning the fluid to the source or into another reservoir via the outlet.
Moore discloses additionally comprising: returning the fluid to the source or into another reservoir via the outlet, (Water Source 102 and Return Pipe 118 with Water Treatment Component 117, Treatment Area 122, See Figure 1, Moore).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of modified Axmann by incorporating additionally comprising: returning the fluid to the source or into another reservoir via the outlet as in Moore because “the need for…water storage has increased with growing potable water consumption and needs”, (See paragraph [0002], Moore), and “insure water provided…met expected values for purity and disinfection”, (See paragraph [0039], Moore).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights