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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/11/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 5/11/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions appear to be part of an overlapping search area. This is not found persuasive because the current application is a 371 filing of a PCT and therefore does not fall under the independent and distinct criteria but rather the unity of invention criteria. As such the inventions of groups I-III lack unity of invention for the reasons stated in the restriction requirement. Applicant has not addressed the lack of unity set forth in the requirement and therefore has not traversed the grounds for the restriction set forth by the office.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In the reply applicant did not elect a specie. The examiner spoke with applicant’s representative on 1/2/26 where applicant elected specie 1.
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 1-6 and 8-10 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 an active flash-light treatment system in the preamble. The specification provides a definition of a flash lamp in paragraph 51. However, the body of claim 1 requires only a generic light source. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim actually requires a flash-light/lamp or just any type of light source. For examination purposes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is taken and therefore, the claim is assumed to require a generic light source and not a flash-light/lamp. Given the limitation of claim 5 this is deemed the most reasonable interpretation.
Claim 1 recites a controller configured to select a wavelength conversion material for the reactor. However, the claim does not every positively recite the wavelength conversion material as being required in the system. The claim limitations only require the controller to select a wavelength conversion material. Therefore, it is unclear if the wavelength conversion material is actually part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite a process limitation of the converted light irradiates the liquid stream to degrade the organic pollutants. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear if infringement would occur if a system existed that is configured to irradiate the liquid stream or if infringement would occur when the liquid stream was actually irradiated.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pollutant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the organic pollutants”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vecziedins et al. US 2018/0319678 in view of Szabo et al. EP 3,685,656.
Claim 1, Vecziedins teaches an active flash light treatment system comprising: a reactor (160) configured to receive a liquid stream, a light source (166) configured to generate an emitted light having a first wavelength range (par 39), an upstream sensor (92) configured to measure a characteristic of the liquid stream before entering the reactor (par 47-48), and a controller (44) configured to analyze the characteristic of the liquid stream (par 44-48), wherein the wavelength conversion material is configured to absorb the emitted light and generate a converted light having a second wavelength range, different from the first wavelength range and the system is configures such that the converted light is able to irradiate the liquid stream (fig. 4, 11-22, par 7-9, 39, 44-48). Vecziedins does not teach the controller configured to select a wavelength conversion material based on the characteristic of the liquid stream. The recited selection of a wavelength conversion material does not provide any particular effect on the system as the controller merely selects a material but the claim does not require the material to actually be placed or used within the system.
Szabo teaches a light treatment system comprising: a reactor (100), a light source (5) configured to generate an emitted light having a first wavelength range (par 67), a sensor configured to measure a characteristic of an environment before being exposed to the light, and a controller (6) configured to analyze the characteristic and to select a wavelength conversion material (3, 4) for the reactor, based on the characteristic, the wavelength conversion material is configured to absorb the emitted light and generate a converted light having a second wavelength range, different from the first wavelength range (fig. 1, par 7-12, 48-49, 67-68). Vecziedins teaches a controller that measures a characteristic of a fluid to be irradiated and controls the irradiation of that liquid based on the measured characteristic. Szabo teaches the technique of using a controller to select a wavelength conversion material based on the object to be treated by the particular wavelength of light based on measured characteristics of the object to be treated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the technique of the controller selecting a wavelength conversion material to irradiate the liquid of Vecziedins as the technique provides for irradiating the liquid with the desired and proper wavelength of light to achieve the desired effect on the liquid irradiated. The claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2, Vecziedins teaches the reactor having a housing that holds the liquid stream but does not teach the wavelength conversion material is placed outside the housing. Placing the wavelength conversion material outside the housing is a recitation of a rearrangement of the parts taught by Vecziedins. Shifting the position of an element is unpatentable if shifting the position of the element would not modify the operation of the device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (1950). Where the wavelength conversion material is placed would not affect the operation of the invention as long as the emitted light can be absorbed and re-emitted by the wavelength conversion material as would be readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8 and 10, Vecziedins further teaches the light source is placed within the housing, in direct contact with the liquid stream (fig. 21); the light source is a flash light (par 47-48, 55); the characteristic is a type of pollutant (par 47); the controller selects an energy of the emitted light, a length of a pulse of the light source and a frequency of pulses emitted by the light source (par 44); and a reflective material located around the wavelength conversion material to reflect all light back to the liquid stream (fig. 21-22, par 57).
Claim 4, Vecziedins further teaches the housing and the wavelength conversion material form an annulus but does not teach additional light sources located in the annulus. The recitation of additional light sources is a recitation of a duplication of parts taught by Vecziedins. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (1960). Additionally, Szabo teaches multiple light sources can be used. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9, Vecziedins further teaches a flowchart in figure 15, which requires a step (140) of determining if the water still needs treatment. In order to determine if the water still needs treatment, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the original characteristic of the water would need to be re-measured. The flow chart then discloses the controller adjusting the lamp output based on the sensor data in step (138) and the controller of Vecziedins is configured to adjust an energy of the emitted light (par 44). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the process of Vecziedins will inherently include a downstream sensor to re-measure the characteristic of the liquid stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights