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 .
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 1-10, and 13-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light sources". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the plurality of light sources”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a reactor volume". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. . Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the reactor volume”
Claim 9 recites the limitations “wall cavities”, “a radiation receiving relationship”, and “one or more of the light sources. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the reflector elements” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-10, and 13-15 are rejected.
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 1-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salters et al (PG-PUB US 2017/0197693) in view of Woelk (PG-PUB US 2021/0138519).
Regarding claim 1, Salters et al disclose a light radiation apparatus and a method of using the same (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises a vessel 20 and light modules 200 (i.e., a reactor and a light source arrangement,), wherein
(i) the vessel 20 is configured to contain water to be treated and partitioned by the light modules 200 (i.e., the reactor … comprises one or more walls); and
(ii) each of the light modules 200 comprises a plurality of UV LEDs 210 having emitting surfaces toward a surface 222 and encapsulated in light-transmissive optical medium 220 (i.e., a plurality of light sources … a light emitting surface, at least … defines wall cavities, … transmissive for the light source radiation, … at least partly in the wall cavities …, … at least partly encloses the light emitting surface, wherein … solid state light sources …, Figures 2-5, paragraphs [0116], [0120] –[0123], [0138], & [0144] – [0147]).
Salters does not teach the emitting surface 222 of the optical medium 220 having dome-shaped surface. However, Woelk discloses a light radiation apparatus (ABSTRACT). Woelk teaches that the apparatus comprises one or more UV LEDs 608 accommodated in a cavity 606 having a convex/domed UV transparent surface 604, wherein the apparatus includes the curved/domed area 604 for passing through the UV radiation and the proximate flat area 620 (i.e., the wall cavities have an dome-like shape, … a reactor section…, inter reactor section channels…, Figure 6, paragraphs [0046] – [0048]). Woelk further indicates that the curved/domed surface along with the adjacent flat area can improve water flow for better treatment and may also aid in providing more uniform UV power distribution (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a domed surface on the emitting side as suggested by Woelk in order to improve treatment efficiency and provide uniform UV power distribution within the device of Salters.
It should be noted that the limitation of “a flow velocity of the fluid in the inter reactor section channel is higher than in the reactor section” is a result of operating the apparatus, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, the curved surface of Woelk is fully capable of inducing higher velocity at the flat sections than at the curved section.
Regarding claim 2, Woelk teaches that the cavity 606 includes a UV LED (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Woelk teaches that the convex transparent window 604 has a shape of spherical cap (Figure 6, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Salters teaches that a plurality of light modules 200 can be used for treatment and pitches can be adjusted for desired results (Figures 5, paragraphs [0044], [0121], & [0144] – [0147]). Woelk teaches that the cavity 606 has a convex/domed surface with an equivalent diameter (Figure 6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to optimize the ratio of the two parameters in order to achieve desired treatment within the device of Salters/Woelk.
Regarding claim 5, Salters teaches that a reflector or reflecting coating may be provided within the optical medium 210 (Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0116] – [0118] & [0135 – [0136]). Woelk teaches that the surface of the proximate area 620 may reflect the UV light (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Salters teaches that a plurality of light modules 200 are provided parallelly having at least two parallel surfaces/walls of the optical medium and voids therebetween (Figures 5, paragraph [0147]).
Regarding claim 7, Salters teaches that the light modules 200 are provided for receiving the water to be treated (Figures 5, paragraphs [0147]). Woelk teaches that the convex/domed surface is for treating the water (Figure 6, paragraphs [0046] – [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Woelk teaches that the window has a shape of convex/dome (Figure 6, paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Salters teaches that (i) each of the light modules 200 comprises a plurality of UV LEDs 210 having emitting surfaces toward a surface 222 and encapsulated in light-transmissive optical medium 220 and (ii) a plurality of light modules 200 are provided parallelly having at least two parallel surfaces/walls (Figures 2-5, paragraphs [0116], [0120] –[0123], [0138], & [0144] – [0147]).
Regarding claim 10, Salters teaches that a reflector or reflecting coating may be provided within the optical medium 210 (Figures 2-3, paragraphs [0116] – [0118] & [0135 – [0136]). Woelk teaches that the surface of the proximate area 620 may reflect the UV light (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Salters teaches UV LEDs and a control system 300 for controlling the intensity of the light source (Figures 2-5, paragraphs [0020], [0045], [0138] & [0151]). Woelk teaches UV LED 608 and a controller 612 (Figure 6, paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Salter teaches that water is treated in the vessel 2 with the radiation from the light modules 200 (Figures 5, paragraphs [0144] – [0147]). Woelk teaches to treat water with the apparatus using the radiation from the UV LED (paragraphs [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Salters teaches UV LEDs and a control system 300 for controlling the intensity of the light source (Figures 2-5, paragraphs [0020], [0045], [0138] & [0151]). Woelk teaches UV LED 608 and a controller 612 while water is treated with the UV LED by flowing through the window (Figure 6, paragraph [0046]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-10, and 13-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights