DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on August 3, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
By preliminary amendment, Claims 10, 11, and 13 have been canceled and Claim 14 added. Claims 1-9, 12, and 14 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content does not conform to the requirements of MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(B). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: use of “the” before “ultraviolet” in line 2 renders the claim grammatically and technically incorrect as there are two sources of ultraviolet light. 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.
Claims 6-9 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 6 recites the limitation "the ultraviolet light" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second light source unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “one surface of open left side thereof” which lacks meaning and does not appear to conform to the structure disclosed in Figure 2 and paragraph 50 of the specification.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "open one surface of the first reaction unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "open one surface of the first reaction unit" which lacks meaning and does not appear to conform to any structure disclosed in the drawings or specification.
Claim 9 recites a cylindrical connector and that the structure moves fluid yet how a stationary object may move fluid without imparting a motive force is not clear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "open one surface of the second reaction unit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "open one surface of the second reaction unit" which lacks meaning and does not appear to conform to any structure disclosed in the drawings or specification.
Claims 8 and 9 contain structure that is not discernable which prevents a search of the prior art based upon any recognizable technical features and limitations in the art. In situations "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II). As such, no prior art rejections of these claims can be made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al., Korean Patent No. 20-0277030 (“Jung”) in view of Kato, et al., Japanese Publication No. 202044515 (“Kato”). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translation and the drawings in the original documents.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Jung discloses an ultraviolet disinfection device comprising a fluid supply unit for supplying a fluid introduced therein (Fig. 11 (note arrow indicating flow from fluid supply unit), Paragraph (“Pr”) 33 (note flow)); a fluid flow sensing unit for sensing the flow of the fluid (Figs. 1, 2, item 40, Pr7,23,27,34); a power unit for supplying power if a fluid flow signal is received from the fluid flow sensing unit (Fig. 1, item 30, Pr6,21-23); a first reaction unit adapted to introduce the fluid received from the fluid supply unit (Fig. 1, item 11, Pr20,28) through a fluid inlet formed on one side thereof (Fig. 1, item 12, Pr5,20,28) and to discharge the fluid through a fluid outlet formed on the other side thereof (Fig. 1, item 13, Pr5,20,29); and a first light source unit disposed on the other side of the first reaction unit and adapted to receive the power from the power unit and thus irradiate ultraviolet light onto the fluid moving along the first reaction unit (Fig. 1 (note central UV lamp attached to power unit 30), Pr6,21,30).
Jung does not disclose a fluid inlet formed on underside or a fluid outlet formed on top.
Kato also relates to an ultraviolet disinfecting device and discloses a fluid inlet formed on underside (Fig. 2, item 4, Pr15) and a fluid outlet formed on top (Fig. 2, item 5, Pr15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch the upper and lower inlet and outlet disclosed by Jung with that disclosed by Kato because, according to Kato, the configuration was known in the art and is only one of two arrangements. Further, changing of the positions of the inlet and outlet would lead one to have a reasonable expectation of success that would lead to a predictable solution of allowing fluid flow with sterilization to occur.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: an outer cover adapted to surround the first reaction unit (Jung, Fig. 1, item 10, Pr4,20,21; Kato, Fig. 2, item 24, Pr19,24) and having a reflector coated on the inner peripheral surface thereof to reflect the ultraviolet light therefrom (Kato, Pr24 (note suggestion of using reflective coating and that all limitation need not be explicitly disclosed)). Claim 3: wherein the first reaction unit is made of an ultraviolet transmitting material (Kato, Pr21-22).
Claims 4-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al., Korean Patent No. 20-0277030 (“Jung”) in view of Kato, et al., Japanese Publication No. 202044515 (“Kato”) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Boal, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0298592 (“Boal”). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translation and the drawings in the original documents.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 4-7 and 14, the combination of Jung and Kato discloses the ultraviolet disinfection device according to Claim 1 except a second reaction unit adapted to introduce the fluid discharged from the first reaction unit through a fluid inlet formed on top of the other side thereof and to discharge the fluid through a fluid outlet formed on underside of one side thereof; and a second light source unit disposed on one side of the second reaction unit to irradiate ultraviolet light onto the fluid moving along the second reaction unit.
Boal also relates to an ultraviolet disinfecting device and discloses a second reaction unit adapted to introduce the fluid discharged from the first reaction unit through a fluid inlet and to discharge the fluid through a fluid outlet (Fig. 1, items 20, 22, 27, Pr39; and a second light source unit disposed on one side of the second reaction unit to irradiate ultraviolet light onto the fluid moving along the second reaction unit (Fig. 1, item 26’, Pr39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the single reaction unit and light source disclosed by the combination of Jung and Kato with the second reaction unit and light source disclosed by Boal because, according to Boal, this allows the use of multiple ultraviolet wavelengths to optimize phytolysis of contaminants (Pr31,37,39). Further, changing of the positions of the inlets and outlets to one of the known limited arrangements would lead one to have a reasonable expectation of success that would lead to a predictable solution of allowing fluid flow with sterilization to occur.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 5: wherein the fluid flow sensing unit is disposed on a path connecting the first reaction unit and the second reaction unit to each other and thus senses the flow of the fluid (Jung, Fig. 1, Pr23 (disclosing flow sensor on inlet such that it would have been obvious to have a flow sensor on the inlet to the second reaction unit)). Claim 6: wherein the outer peripheral surface of the second reaction unit is coated with a reflector from which the ultraviolet light is reflected so that the ultraviolet light irradiated from the first light source unit is reflected from the second reaction unit (Kato, Pr6,9,21-23). Claims 7, 14: wherein the first light source unit and the second light source unit irradiate the ultraviolet light having different maximum wavelength peaks (Boal, Pr6,7,31).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al., Korean Patent No. 20-0277030 (“Jung”) in view of Boal, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2012/0298592 (“Boal”). A machine translation accompanies this detailed action and the claim is mapped to that translation and the drawings in the original document.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Jung discloses an ultraviolet disinfection method comprising the steps of supplying a fluid introduced through a water supply pipe (Fig. 1, Pr33); sensing the flow of the fluid (Figs. 1, 2, item 40, Pr7,23,27,34); supplying power if the flow of the fluid is sensed (Fig. 1, item 30, Pr6,21-23); receiving the power to irradiate first ultraviolet light onto the fluid flowing (Fig. 1 (note central UV lamp attached to power unit 30), Pr6,21,30).
Jung does not disclose receiving the power to irradiate second ultraviolet light onto the fluid flowing.
Boal also relates to an ultraviolet disinfecting method and discloses receiving power to irradiate second ultraviolet light onto the fluid flowing (Fig. 1, item 26’, Pr39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the single reaction unit and light source disclosed by Jung with the second light source disclosed by Boal because, according to Boal, this allows the use of multiple ultraviolet wavelengths to optimize phytolysis of contaminants (Pr31,37,39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 Upper figure referred to as Figure 1 and lower figure referred to as Figure 2 despite lack of numbers (see paragraph 26-27).