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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2023 and 05/29/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- "phase" should read “rotational angle”. The term “phase” is not explicitly defined in the claimed invention. Being consistent with the drawings, the term “phase” shows a meaning of geometric and rotational orientation, for example, see fig.7 and para. 80.
- “reaction product” should read “reaction material”, because “product” is what is called after the process is finished.
- “reaction tube” should read “protective sleeve”, because the reaction, i.e. photocatalysis, happens in the liquid outside the tube, on the outer surface of the tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “phase” should read “rotational angle”, in claims 1 and 5;
The term “reaction product” should read “reaction material”, in claims 1, 8, and 10;
The term “reaction tube” should read “protective sleeve”, in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-9 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 1 recites “the phase of each of the catalyst reactors being a phase of a reference direction of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor with respect to a straight line connecting centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, and wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the reference direction of the reaction tube is a direction determined on the basis of a direction in which light is emitted from the light emitters disposed in the reaction tube and a positional relationship between the light emitters. ”, which deems the claim indefinite. The term “a positional relationship” is not defined by the claim, therefore “a reference direction” is not defined by the claim. One of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as all the catalyst reactors are arranged in a uniform circular array where in the center of the circle is the axis of the rotating shaft.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a waste water processing device for degrading organic pollutants of water, of which the structure is substantially identical to the claimed food processing device (p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3; also see fig.1). An apparatus is defined by the structure. Accordingly, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from the apparatus of Kang. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Kang discloses that the device comprising:
a reaction vessel (barrel body, 1 in fig.1) having a space (see fig.1, annotated) that receives a reaction product (waste water) for a food product (cleaned or purified water) (The device receives waste water for degrading organic pollutants of water, which is a key process component of producing cleaned or purified water, p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3), the reaction product being in a liquid form (water is in a fluid form, see p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3);
a stirrer (including motor 11, stirring shaft 16 and stirring blade 17, see fig.1) including a stirring body (stirring shaft 16 and stirring blade 17 in fig.1) that rotates to stir the reaction product in the reaction vessel; and
catalyst reactors (see fig.1, annotated),
wherein each of the catalyst reactors includes a reaction tube (substrate, 3 in fig.1) and a light source (UV-LED light source, 4 in fig.1, p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 8 and 11) disposed in the reaction tube (see fig.1),
wherein the reaction tube has an outer surface (outer surface of substrate 3 in fig.1) on which a photocatalyst (photocatalyst film 5 in fig.1) is provided (The substrate is coated with nano titanium dioxide thin film, p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, paras 3 and 4.),
wherein the reaction tube transmits light emitted from the light source (Ultraviolet light is emitted by the ultraviolet light source 4 of uniform irradiation, p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 3, ll. 3-4.),
wherein the catalyst reactors are arranged around a rotating shaft (stirring shaft, 16 in fig.1) of the stirring body with intervals (see fig.1, annotated) between the catalyst reactors,
wherein the light source includes light emitters disposed at different positions (see fig.1, annotated) when viewed in an axial direction of the rotating shaft (The plurality of substrates is arranged in parallel, and the UV-LED light source is fixed through the lamp holder on the substrate, p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 7 and 11. Light sources 4 including light emitters are disposed at different positions in parallel to the shaft's center line, see fig.1, annotated, therefore are disposed at different positions when viewed in an axial direction of the stirring shaft 16.).
Kang discloses a symmetrical reactor layout in fig.1. Kang also discloses uniform irradiation from the UV-LED light source emitting light to the photocatalyst film coated on the substrate (i.e. reaction tube) [p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 3 and 8]. In addition, Kang discloses that through setting stirring shaft and stirring blades, the wastewater flows and fully contacts with the photocatalyst for uniform solid-liquid phase distribution, in order to improve the light catalytic reaction efficiency [p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 1].
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other, the phase of each of the catalyst reactors being a phase of a reference direction of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor with respect to a straight line connecting centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, and wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the reference direction of the reaction tube is a direction determined on the basis of a direction in which light is emitted from the light emitters disposed in the reaction tube and a positional relationship between the light emitters.
However, Zhang discloses a photo-catalysis reaction device wherein the light sources (2, para.7) set in quartz sleeves are arranged in a uniform circular array where the center of the circle is the axis of the rotating shaft [see fig.1 and fig.2 of Zhang, annotated, and para. 7]. A person of ordinary skill seeking to optimize the liquid reactor of Kang would naturally adopt a uniform circular array of Zhang to arrange the catalyst reactors of Kang for ensuring every reaction tube treats the passing liquid identically for uniform irradiation and uniform solid-liquid phase distribution to improve light catalytic reaction efficiency as taught by Kang. The combination of the teachings by Kang and Zhang discloses wherein the catalyst reactors containing UV-LED light sources are arranged in a uniform circular array of which the axis of the rotating shaft is in the center, which is the interpretation of the corresponding limitations as described in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other, the phase of each of the catalyst reactors being a phase of a reference direction of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor with respect to a straight line connecting centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, and wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the reference direction of the reaction tube is a direction determined on the basis of a direction in which light is emitted from the light emitters disposed in the reaction tube and a positional relationship between the light emitters, in order to ensure uniform irradiation for an improved light catalytic reaction efficiency as taught by Kang and Zhang. This is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (D).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Kang, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
460
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
576
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zhang, annotated Fig. 2 of Zhang, annotated
Regarding claim 4, Kang discloses wherein the catalyst reactors include:
first catalyst reactors arranged around the rotating shaft with intervals between the first catalyst reactors (See fig.1 of Kang, annotated); and
second catalyst reactors arranged around the first catalyst reactors with intervals between the second catalyst reactors (See fig.1 of Kang, annotated).
Regarding claim 7, Kang discloses
wherein the light source includes light emission units, each of which includes light emitting diodes arranged in a length direction of the reaction tube (UV-LED light source is disposed in the reaction tube of each of the catalyst reactors in a length direction of the reaction tube, see fig.1 and p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 3 and 8.), and
wherein each of the light emission units is disposed to emit light toward an inner wall of the reaction tube (Kang discloses that uniform irradiation for activating the photocatalyst film 5 coated on the inner wall of the tube is achieved by the UV-LED light source emitting, see fig.1 and p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 3 and 8. The arrangement of LED emission units is inherent to their function to the structure of the device.)
Claims 2, 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) and ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Casado et al. (Design and validation of a LED-based high intensity photocatalytic reactor for quantifying activity measurements, Chemical Engineering Journal, 327(1): 1043-1055, 2017.) and Keith (US-20180185539).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of the teachings by Kang and Zhang discloses wherein the catalyst reactors containing UV-LED light sources are arranged in a uniform circular array of which the axis of the rotating shaft is in the center (See the rejection on claim 1.).
The combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed to emit light line-symmetrically about the straight line.
In order to study and solve challenges and problems in photocatalysis development for water treatment applications [Sec.1, para. 1], Casado teaches a model of the Local Volumetric Rates of Energy Absorption (LVREA). Casado discloses that radiation uniformity in an annular reactor is a direct function of emitter symmetry [Sec. 2.4]. Using LVREA of the liquid photocatalytic reactor, Casado proves that for a circular array of reactors to be effective, the light must be distributed evenly [Sec. 3.1, fig.1, fig.6]. As taught by Casado, when lamps are placed in a circle, any deviation from the radial symmetry, i.e. line-symmetry, results in a loss of efficiency and creates dark zones where microbes survive. A person having ordinary skills in the art would be motivated by the teachings of Casado to use line-symmetric light distribution to prevent dark zones in the liquid food processor, which is critical for the food safety standards.
Furthermore, Keith discloses a liquid photocatalytic reactor with blades and light sources that run the length of the longitudinal axis [Abstract, para. 48, figs. 1 and 2]. Keith teaches that reaction surfaces, i.e. blades or tubes, should be arranged symmetrically [figs. 1 and 2] so that the system can redirect and refocus light to pass it through reflection from one catalyst tube surface onto the adjacent surfaces [paras 10 and 15]. To make the bouncing of light work in a circular array, Keith discloses a line-symmetric light source orientation [para. 48, fig. 2]. A person having ordinary skills in the art would follow the design principles of Keith [paras 10 and 15] to align the tubes line-symmetric about the radial axis to perform light reclaiming and to ensure that any light not absorbed by the first reactor is focused onto the adjacent one, in pursuit of eliminating photon waste and reducing energy consumption [paras 3 and 4].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed to emit light line-symmetrically about the straight line, as the line-symmetric arrangement is a predictable application of known optical laws taught by Casado and known reactor efficiency designs taught by Keith applied to the structural framework of the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang, in order to prevent dark zones for a better sterilization efficiency as taught by Casado and to perform light reclaiming for eliminating photon waste and reducing energy consumption as taught by Keith. The physical foundation and real-world application for line-symmetry is already present in the prior art. This is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed closer to a location close to the rotating shaft on an inner wall of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor than to a location far from the rotating shaft on the inner wall of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor.
However, Casado’s LVREA model teaches that light intensity decreases as it travels through a participating medium, i.e. the liquid, due to photon absorption [Sec. 2.4, para. 1]. Light directed toward the outer wall of the vessel is likely to be absorbed by the vessel wall or lost in the stagnant corners of the vessel. By shifting the light source inward toward the rotating shaft, the bulk of the radiation is ensured to be directed into the center of the liquid mass. The teaching of Casado [Sec. 2.4, para. 1] provides the motivation to bias the light toward the inward side of the tube to maximize photon capture.
Moreover, Keith discloses that moving the light source closer to the rotating shaft is a routine optimization intended to focus UV radiation on the high-turbulence mixing zone created by the stirrer [para. 14, fig.3], which is in consistent with the inverse square law — Light intensity is highest near the source, thus moving it inward targets the high-density mixing zone. Keith teaches that when mounting an LED strip on the blades, or tubes, choosing the side that faces the central stirring zone, i.e. the inward side can maximize sterilization efficiency in a rotating fluid, as it allows for the tilting or refocusing of light to prevent energy loss to the outer vessel wall [para. 14, fig.3].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed closer to a location close to the rotating shaft on an inner wall of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor than to a location far from the rotating shaft on the inner wall of the reaction tube of the catalyst reactor, as shifting the light source within the tube to face the center of rotation is a predictable application of the inverse square law as shown by Casado and standard fluid-dynamics modeling as shown by Keith. This is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang discloses wherein the first catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other and to a first phase, the phase of each of the first catalyst reactors being a phase of the reference direction of the reaction tube of the first catalyst reactor with respect to the straight line connecting the centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, wherein the second catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other and to a second phase, the phase of each of the second catalyst reactors being a phase of the reference direction of the reaction tube of the second catalyst reactor with respect to the straight line connecting the centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube (see the rejection on claim 1, and fig. 1 of Kang, annotated.).
The combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the first phase and the second phase differ from each other.
However, Casado provides the radiation field equations to illustrate that UV light intensity drops down rapidly [Sec. 2.4]. To maintain a sufficient dose of photon in a large vessel, a person having ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to place a second circle of lights further out to boost the radiation in the outer zones of the liquid for higher photon throughput as taught by Kang. More importantly, Casado teaches that for a circular array of reactors to be effective, the light must be distributed evenly [Sec. 3.1, fig.1, fig.6]. Shadowing, i.e. giving rise to any dark zones, is the opposite of the uniformity. To solve the shadowing problem, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that staggering the tubes, i.e. placing an outer circle of tubes behind the gap of the inner circle of tubes, is the only way to ensure the light leaking through the first circle to be captured by the second one.
Moreover, Keith teaches that photocatalytic reaction surfaces, blades or tubes, can be stacked to reclaim light [paras 10 and 15], Keith also discloses that the reaction elements can overlap in a radial direction [fig. 2]. The structure of two distinct circles of tubes is an obvious geometric variation of the teaching of Keith applied to the structure using tubes. In addition, Keith teaches that using blade shapes and intervals to increase fluid flow and control pressure [para. 0040, fig. 2]. Applying this teaching of Keith to the condition that reaction tubes surround the stirrer, staggering the tubes creating a zigzag flow for the liquid to increase residence time and surface contact is standard and obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other and to a first phase, the phase of each of the first catalyst reactors being a phase of the reference direction of the reaction tube of the first catalyst reactor with respect to the straight line connecting the centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, wherein the second catalyst reactors have phases equal to each other and to a second phase, the phase of each of the second catalyst reactors being a phase of the reference direction of the reaction tube of the second catalyst reactor with respect to the straight line connecting the centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, and wherein the first phase and the second phase differ from each other. The staggered arrangement is a predictable and routine optimization by applying the teachings of Casado on the necessity of eliminating dark zones caused by shadowing, and of Keith on using staggered surfaces to reclaim light and manage fluid dynamics, in order to ensure uniform UV exposure and maximize catalyst contact as the fluid is moved by the stirrer in the disclosure of Kang. There is no unexpected synergy more than the teachings of Casado and Keith that a person having ordinary skills in the art would not have predicted. This is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (G).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) and ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US-6135838) and Bibova et al. (SiO2/TiO2 Composite Coating on Light Substrates for Photocatalytic Decontamination of Water, Journal of Chemistry, 2019: 11, 2019).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang discloses wherein the light source is ultraviolet light source disposed to extend in a length direction of the reaction tube (UV-LED light source is disposed in the reaction tube of each of the catalyst reactors in a length direction of the reaction tube, see fig.1 of Kang, p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 3 and 8).
The combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the light source is a fluorescent lamp including two glass tube bodies disposed to extend in a length direction of the reaction tube.
However, Wang discloses a U-shaped type of UV lamp with two glass tube bodies for photocatalytic reactors for air cleaning [abstract, Fig.6C]. Moreover, Bibova discloses to use UV fluorescent lamps for photocatalytic decontamination of water [sec. 2.3, Photoreactors and the Operating Conditions].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the light source is a fluorescent lamp including two glass tube bodies disposed to extend in a length direction of the reaction tube, by substituting a UV light source to a U-shaped type of UV fluorescent lamp with two glass tube bodies as taught by Wang and Bibova. This is Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) and ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehud et al. (WO-2014051906).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose a cooler that is disposed to surround the catalyst reactors and cools the reaction product in the reaction vessel.
However, Ehud discloses a cooling jacket arranged peripherally around a liquid photocatalytic reaction vessel to maintain the fluid temperature in the optimum range to prevent thermal degradation of the fluid [Abstract, fig.2, para. 17].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cooler that is disposed to surround the catalyst reactors and cools the reaction product in the reaction vessel, in order to manage the food fluid in the optimum temperature range to prevent thermal damage as taught by Ehud.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) and ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabello et al. (US-8038938).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein each of the catalyst reactors includes a fixer disposed between the light source and a bottom portion of the reaction tube, the fixer fixing the light source to the bottom portion of the reaction tube.
However, Cabello discloses a liquid photocatalytic reactor with modular configuration. Cabello teaches that using support discs for the glass strips carrying the catalyst mounting the bottom of the quartz tubes containing light source, to fix the light source and protect the UV lamps [col.7, ll. 63-65, fig.7].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein each of the catalyst reactors includes a fixer disposed between the light source and a bottom portion of the reaction tube, the fixer fixing the light source to the bottom portion of the reaction tube, in order to protect the tubes with light source from damage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (CN-106946313) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN-203990575), Casado et al. (Design and validation of a LED-based high intensity photocatalytic reactor for quantifying activity measurements, Chemical Engineering Journal, 327(1): 1043-1055, 2017.), and Keith (US-20180185539).
Regarding claim 10, Kang discloses a waste water processing device for degrading organic pollutants of water, of which the structure is substantially identical to the claimed food processing device (p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3; also see fig.1). An apparatus is defined by the structure. Accordingly, recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed invention from the apparatus of Kang. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Kang discloses that the device comprising:
a reaction vessel (barrel body, 1 in fig.1) having a space (see fig.1, annotated) that receives a reaction product (waste water) for a food product (cleaned or purified water) (The device receives waste water for degrading organic pollutants of water, which is a key process component of producing cleaned or purified water, p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3), the reaction product being in a liquid form (water is in a fluid form, see p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, para. 3);
a stirrer (including motor 11, stirring shaft 16 and stirring blade 17, see fig.1) including a stirring body (stirring shaft 16 and stirring blade 17 in fig.1) that rotates to stir the reaction product in the reaction vessel; and
catalyst reactors (see fig.1, annotated),
wherein each of the catalyst reactors includes a reaction tube (substrate, 3 in fig.1) and a light source (UV-LED light source, 4 in fig.1, p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 8 and 11) disposed in the reaction tube (see fig.1),
wherein the reaction tube has an outer surface (outer surface of substrate 3 in fig.1) on which a photocatalyst (photocatalyst film 5 in fig.1) is provided (The substrate is coated with nano titanium dioxide thin film, p.2 of attached translation, s. Description, sub-s. Invention contents, paras 3 and 4.),
wherein the reaction tube transmits light emitted from the light source (Ultraviolet light is emitted by the ultraviolet light source 4 of uniform irradiation, p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 3, ll. 3-4.),
wherein the catalyst reactors are arranged around a rotating shaft (stirring shaft, 16 in fig.1) of the stirring body with intervals (see fig.1, annotated) between the catalyst reactors,
wherein the light source includes light emitters disposed at different positions (see fig.1, annotated) when viewed in an axial direction of the rotating shaft (The plurality of substrates is arranged in parallel, and the UV-LED light source is fixed through the lamp holder on the substrate, p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 7 and 11. Light sources 4 including light emitters are disposed at different positions in parallel to the shaft's center line, see fig.1, annotated, therefore are disposed at different positions when viewed in an axial direction of the stirring shaft 16.).
Kang discloses a symmetrical reactor layout in fig.1. Kang also discloses uniform irradiation from the UV-LED light source emitting light to the photocatalyst film coated on the substrate (i.e. reaction tube) [p.2 of attached translation, bottom paras 3 and 8]. In addition, Kang discloses that through setting stirring shaft and stirring blades, the wastewater flows and fully contacts with the photocatalyst for uniform solid-liquid phase distribution, in order to improve the light catalytic reaction efficiency [p.2 of attached translation, bottom para. 1].
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed to emit light line-symmetrically about a straight line connecting centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube.
However, Zhang discloses a photo-catalysis reaction device wherein the light sources (2, para.7) set in quartz sleeves are arranged in a uniform circular array where the center of the circle is the axis of the rotating shaft [see fig.1 and fig.2 of Zhang, annotated, and para. 7]. A person of ordinary skill seeking to optimize the liquid reactor of Kang would naturally adopt a uniform circular array of Zhang to arrange the catalyst reactors of Kang for ensuring every reaction tube treats the passing liquid identically for uniform irradiation and uniform solid-liquid phase distribution to improve light catalytic reaction efficiency as taught by Kang.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings by Zhang to arrange the catalyst reactors of Kang in a uniform circular array of which the center is the axis of the rotating shaft for treating the passing liquid identically, in order to ensure uniform irradiation and uniform solid-liquid phase distribution for an improved light catalytic reaction efficiency as taught by Kang and Zhang. This is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (D).
Moreover, in order to study and solve challenges and problems in photocatalysis development for water treatment applications [Sec.1, para. 1], Casado teaches a model of the Local Volumetric Rates of Energy Absorption (LVREA). Casado discloses that radiation uniformity in an annular reactor is a direct function of emitter symmetry [Sec. 2.4]. Using LVREA of the liquid photocatalytic reactor, Casado proves that for a circular array of reactors to be effective, the light must be distributed evenly [Sec. 3.1, fig.1, fig.6]. As taught by Casado, when lamps are placed in a circle, any deviation from the radial symmetry, i.e. line-symmetry, results in a loss of efficiency and creates dark zones where microbes survive. A person having ordinary skills in the art would be motivated by the teachings of Casado to use line-symmetric light distribution to prevent dark zones in the liquid food processor, which is critical for the food safety standards.
Furthermore, Keith discloses a liquid photocatalytic reactor with blades and light sources that run the length of the longitudinal axis [Abstract, para. 48, figs. 1 and 2]. Keith teaches that reaction surfaces, i.e. blades or tubes, should be arranged symmetrically [figs. 1 and 2] so that the system can redirect and refocus light to pass it through reflection from one catalyst tube surface onto the adjacent surfaces [paras 10 and 15]. To make the bouncing of light work in a circular array, Keith discloses a line-symmetric light source orientation [para. 48, fig. 2]. A person having ordinary skills in the art would follow the design principles of Keith [paras 10 and 15] to align the tubes line-symmetric about the radial axis to perform light reclaiming and to ensure that any light not absorbed by the first reactor is focused onto the adjacent one, in pursuit of eliminating photon waste and reducing energy consumption [paras 3 and 4].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when viewed in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, the light source of each of the catalyst reactors is disposed to emit light line-symmetrically about a straight line connecting centers of the rotating shaft and the reaction tube, as the line-symmetric arrangement is a predictable application of know optical laws taught by Casado and known reactor efficiency designs taught by Keith applied to the structural framework of the combination of teachings by Kang and Zhang, in order to prevent dark zones for a better sterilization efficiency and to perform light reclaiming for eliminating photon waste and reducing energy consumption. The physical foundation and real-world application for line-symmetry is already present in the prior art. This is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 (I) (G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Zunjing J Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761