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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, each of “at least a transit port” and “at least a vent port” are vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “at least” (additional transit port(s) and vent port(s), respectively, or encompassing other respective features?);
“the external environment” lacks antecedent basis (does this concern space outside of the device?); and
in the clause concerning “said transit port…” , the term “the side of said feeding chamber” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 3, it is unclear whether or not “at least one softened water transit duct” concerns at least one duct which is additional to the “transit duct” which is introduced in independent claim 1 or instead encompasses the “transit duct” which is introduced in claim 1; and,
the claim is ambiguous as to whether the complete phrase “at least one softened water transit duct”, concerns an actual water softener mechanism which forms a component of the fluid interception device, or if instead the phrase merely recites transit ducts which are in communication with a water softener.
In claim 4, it is again unclear whether or not “at least a pair of transit ducts” concerns at least one duct which is additional to the “transit duct” which is introduced in independent claim 1;
it also being unclear whether the recited “pair of transit ducts of a water softener” are further describing and limiting the “at least one softened water transit duct recited in claim 3 from which claim 4 depends, or if instead such clause recites separate transit ducts from those recited in claim 3; and
the claim is ambiguous as to whether the complete phrase “at least a pair of transit ducts of a water softener”, concerns an actual water softener mechanism which forms a component of the fluid separation device, or if instead the phrase merely recites transit ducts which are in communication with a water softener.
In claim 8, the phrase “ribs and deflectors obtained integrally with said separation septum” it is unclear what is meant by “obtained” (it is suggested that such phrase be replaced with “ribs and deflectors integral with said separation septum”.
In claim 9, in line 3 “said transit ducts” (plural) lacks antecedent basis and is inconsistent with “one or more ducts for the transit of fluids…” (singular or plural) in lines 1-2 of the claim; and
it is unclear how the “corresponding transit ports” are structurally and functionally related to “corresponding flow ports”, (does each transit port have communication with each flow port via a respective duct for transit of fluids?).
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, 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharathan et al patent 6,282,497 (Bharathan).
For independent claim 1, Bharathan discloses: A fluid interception apparatus or device 10 equipped with a processing chamber 18 (all of below shown in figure 1, and described in column 1, lines 24-39 regarding the apparatus being part of a system for geothermal processing of fluids to provide alternative forms of energy and column 6, lines 52-59 regarding condenser 10 ),
comprising a hollow box-shaped condenser body (housing 12, figure 1 and column 6, lines 40-45) having in use an upper portion
(air-containing or air gap space between condensing surface contact mediums 28 and 29 and upper or top walls of body 12, in part containing gas chamber or spaces 11 and 46, as described at column 7, lines 5-10 and column 9, lines 55-60), and
a lower portion
(condensing spaces or primary and secondary chambers 18 and 20 between contact mediums 28 and 29 and bottom wall of body 12, in part containing flow space 44, and liquid-containing wells 30 and 32, as described at column 9, lines 20-30 and 49-60 ),
provided with at least a transit port (fig 1 re condensate outlet or drain port in bottom wall of body 12 forming end of duct 34, column 10, lines 4-8),
arranged to fluidly communicate with a transit duct 34 of a drain system (in fluid communication with a draining system, fig 1, column 7, lines 54-55, and column 10, lines 4-8 re transport of drained fluid to a respective destination),
at least a vent port (exhaust pipe 48 in communication with the external environment, fig 1 and column 7, lines 50-54),
wherein said hollow box-shaped condenser body further incorporates one or more condensation nozzles 25 apt to spray water from cooling water pipe 24 (fig 1 and column 9, lines 34-44),
in fluid communication with one or more drain holes arranged in said lower portion of said hollow box-shaped condenser body (drain outlet 36, fig 1 illustrating fluid communication and column 10, lines 4-8),
one or more water feeding nozzles 23, spraying water fed through cooling water supply pipe 22 (fig 1 and column 8, line 59-column 9, line 3) arranged in said upper portion and above with respect to and in fluid communication with said transit port (see figure 1 regarding relative locations of nozzle 23 and transit port (port 34 in condenser body 12),
between said one or more condensation nozzles 25 and one or more water feeding nozzles 23, a separation septum (vertical, plate-like, partition wall 16, fig 1 and column 9, lines 14-26) being arranged to defines and divide a condensation chamber (space 20/29) and a feeding chamber (space 18/28).
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom differ from Bharathan by requiring said transit port being arranged on the side of said feeding chamber and said separation septum providing at least one flow port which places said transit port in communication with said condensation chamber.
However, Bharathan also teaches in the embodiment of figure 9 and as described at column 14, lines 54-60 that other components of the apparatus or device, including coolant supply pipes and spray nozzles may be positioned in any suitable orientation relative to housing body 12 of the apparatus or device, including positioned substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing 12, so long as such orientation meets the objective of distributing cooling or condensing liquid substantially uniformly.
Additionally, Bharathan suggests a transit or flow port being arranged on a side or sidewall of the feeding chamber, by in column 15, lines 5 -10, referring to the embodiment of figure 9, concerning an inlet of steam entering housing body 12 of the injection device in a horizontal flow path.
Thus, Bharathan is accordingly suggesting the obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art of designing and constructing condenser systems to vary the orientation of the transit port relative to the feeding chamber including, optionally locating the port in the side or side wall of the feeding chamber, to facilitate a flow perpendicular relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing, provided that the objective of distributing and maintaining flow of cooling or condensing liquid substantially uniformly is met.
Additionally, Bharathan suggests the obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art of designing and constructing condenser systems to provide a port and corresponding transit duct into the side or side wall of the feeding chamber, in order to provide additional steam to the injection device, so as to effect additional condensation, vaporization and venting of gases impurities.
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom also differ from Bharathan with regard to functional claim 1 language which recites the apparatus or device functioning for a cleaning and disinfecting system for medical devices, and the transport port functioning for fluid communicating with the cleaning and disinfection system.
For claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, recitations of the device being for a cleaning and disinfection system of medical device(s) and fluidly communicating with such medical device(s) are deemed to merely constitute intended uses or purposes of utilizing the structure of the device recited in independent claim 1.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) at Section 2114, part II, cites Case Law which has held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The MPEP states that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, hence carries little patentable weight. Hence claim 1 is maintained as being obvious over Bharathan et al patent 6,282,497 (Bharathan).
For claim 2, Bharathan further discloses wherein said one or more water feeding nozzles 23 are arranged at a distance from said transit port, and at a sufficient height to define an air-containing space between feature 28 and nozzles 23 as illustrated in figure 1, described at column 8, line 59-column 9, line 3 and column 9, lines 20-30).
Bharathan is silent as to the particular “air gap” distance being at a sufficient distance from said transit port, and sufficient height to determine an air gap of at least 10 mm. However, Bharathan teaches away from large condenser housing bodies and thus large dimensions in the housings (column 2, lines 44-47) and has an objective of providing condenser housings or bodies which are inexpensive, compact and simple in design (column 3, lines 62-65), hence suggesting dimensions or spacing between components of the housings or bodies being on the order of millimeters to centimeters.
The claimed air gap distance parameter is deemed to be a results effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to determine such air gap spacing, in order to facilitate an inexpensive, compact and simple in design of the components, while ensuring adequate flow or flowrate capacity for handling of evolved vapor or gases from the liquid being condensed.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation devices having condensation and venting features, to have configured the device water feeding nozzles to have at least a distance of separation from the transit port and being at a sufficient height to enable adequate flow of vapors or gas through the upper part of the apparatus or device, and at an adequate flow or flowrate capacity for handling of evolved vapor or gases from the liquid being condensed while maintaining an inexpensive, compact and simple design of the components.
For claim 6, Bharathan further discloses wherein said separation septum longitudinally divides said hollow box-shaped condenser body (figure 1 illustrates diving wall or septum 16 aligned along a relatively elongated axis of condenser body 12, and see column 9, lines 14-26).
For claim 7, Bharathan further discloses wherein said feeding chamber and condensation chamber, are opposite one another on either side of said separation septum, are closed to the outside by a front cover and a rear cover respectively (side walls of body 12 on opposing sides of the separation septum 16), said rear cover being equipped with at least one exhaust outlet 48 which forms said vent port (again all shown in figure 1 and see column 9, lines 14-26).
For claim 9, Bharathan further discloses wherein the interception device is a component of a system and comprising a processing chamber (figure 9 embodiment which may include additional chambers 20 which may be outside the housing of the “interception device” of claim 1 or a cross-current flow chamber outside and adjacent the interception device housing (column 15, lines 1-10) and
one or more ducts for the transit of fluids to corresponding flow ports, wherein said transit ducts are in fluid communication with corresponding transit ports of a device as in claim 1
(see also column 15, lines 5-30 regarding one or more transit ducts and corresponding transport ports including to introduce steam from a cross-current flow chamber into the side of the injection body housing 12 in a horizontal flow path, and
also additional direct contact condensers arranged to provide sequential treatment or processing for further condensing and/or cooling, necessarily requiring additional transit ducts and ports to conduct serial flow between the injection device housing of claim 1 and the additional condensers arranged for series flow).
Similarly to claim 1, claim 9 further differs by requiring the “system” as being a cleaning and disinfecting system for medical devices.
For claim 9, recitation of the “system” being for cleaning and disinfection system of medical device(s) and fluidly communicating with such medical device(s) is also deemed to merely constitute intended use or purpose of utilizing the structure of the system and device recited in claim 9.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) at Section 2114, part II, cites Case Law which has held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The MPEP states that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, hence carries little patentable weight.
Hence claim 9 is maintained as being obvious over Bharathan et al patent 6,282,497 (Bharathan).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharathan et al patent 6,282,497 (Bharathan), as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Bekedam patent 5,405,435 (Bekedam).
For claim 5, Bharathan further discloses wherein water presence-related detection sensors are provided regarding steam and cooling liquid mass flow rates (column 13, lines 5-11) and regarding as well as input parameters regarding boundary conditions and geometric interfaces between liquid, vapor and gas phases within the condenser (column 15, lines 55-67).
Claim 5 differs by requiring wherein a water presence detection sensor is furthermore provided, suitable for determining a level of water accumulated in a lower portion of said hollow box-shaped condenser body.
Bekedam teaches a device for separating non-condensable gases and deaerating for use in a boiler feedwater system (column 1, lines 6-25); the device including a condenser 42 which effects condensation of gases by use of a nozzle 40 which maintains a conical spray from the spray nozzle, gases escaping through vent 64 (column 2, lines 50-56 and column 3, lines 25-36).
Bekedam teaches to maintain constant water levels in the device (column 2, lines 57-61), with the assistance of a water level control sensor 65 that detects water level in a lower level of the device and is used to maintain steady water levels by being part of a control system including make-up water control valve 67 in a water source line (column 4, lines 45-48).
Thus, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation devices having condensation and venting features, to have provided the Bharathan device with such a water presence or water level sensor in combination with a make-up water control mechanism to provide additional water as necessary, as taught by Bekedam, in order to further ensure the disclosed objective of maintaining of stable boundary conditions and geometric interfaces between liquid, vapor and gas phases within the condenser, and to maintain optimal operation of the condenser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 would distinguish and be non-obvious over the closest prior art, deemed to encompass Bharathan and Bekedam, in view of further recitation of wherein said hollow box-shaped condenser body incorporates at least a pair of transit ducts of a water softener, which ducts are equipped with respective vacuum break units.
Claim 4 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of its dependence on distinguishing and non-obvious claim 3. The prior art lacks a suggestion or teaching of such as additional transit ducts, and their having respective vacuum break units.
Claim 8 would distinguish and be non-obvious over the closest prior art, deemed to encompass Bharathan and Bekedam, in view of further recitation of wherein said feeding chamber and condensation chamber have channeling paths for working fluids, defined by ribs and deflectors obtained integrally with said separation septum. The prior art lacks a suggestion or teaching of such ribs and deflectors obtained integrally, or forming components of a separation septum or divider.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A plurality of prior art references is made of record concerning the state of the art, generally, for cleaning and sterilizing dental instruments, and other medical systems, as well as to make of record concerning the state of the art, generally, for vaporizing, condensing and venting or other removal of vapor and other gases from water or other liquids being purified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/24/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773