Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/448,893

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR USING ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES FOR DISINFECTION OF STATIONARY FLUIDS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
LUCK, SEAN M
Art Unit
2878
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Acuva Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
260 granted / 416 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
425
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 416 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1,4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ADELI WO 2019056137 A1 (using US publication version US 20210187149 A1 for citations). Regarding Claim(s) 1, ADELI teaches: An ultraviolet disinfectant head for disinfecting a fluid housed in a cavity of a fluid container having a central axis, the ultraviolet disinfectant head comprising: an ultraviolet light emitting diode (UV-LED) having a principal emission axis; and a lens having a primary optical axis, the lens oriented and/or located to receive radiation from the UV-LED and direct refracted radiation toward a fill plane of the cavity of the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 4, ADELI teaches: wherein when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container: the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is co-axial with the central axis of the fluid container; and the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is co-axial with the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 5, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is spaced apart from and parallel to the central axis of the fluid container when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 6, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is co-axial to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 7, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is spaced apart from and parallel to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 8, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is oriented at a first angle relative to the primary optical axis of the lens and the first angle is an acute angle. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 9, ADELI teaches: wherein the UV-LED is spaced apart from the central axis of the fluid container and the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is non-parallel to the central axis of the fluid container when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 10, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is co-axial to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 11, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is spaced apart from and parallel to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 12, ADELI teaches: wherein the primary optical axis of the lens is spaced apart from and parallel to the central axis of the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 13, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is oriented at a second angle relative to the primary optical axis of the lens and the second angle is an acute angle. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 14, ADELI teaches: wherein the UV-LED is spaced apart from the central axis of the fluid container and the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is oriented at a third angle relative to the central axis of the fluid container when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container and the third angle is an acute angle. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 15, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is co-axial to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 16, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is spaced apart from and parallel to the primary optical axis of the lens. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 17, ADELI teaches: wherein the primary optical axis of the lens is spaced apart from and parallel to the central axis of the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) Regarding Claim(s) 18, ADELI teaches: wherein the principal emission axis of the UV-LED is oriented at a fourth angle relative to the primary optical axis of the lens and the fourth angle is an acute angle. (ADELI [0070]-[0109]) 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 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 of this title, 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. Claim(s) 2-3,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADELI WO 2019056137 A1 (using US publication version US 20210187149 A1 for citations) in view of Taghipour US 20180201521 A1. Regarding Claim(s) 2,3, ADELI does not adequately teach: wherein the lens is a diverging lens. wherein that the refracted radiation is diverging when it reaches the fill plane of the fluid container. (ADELI [0070]-[0109],[0095]) Taghipour teaches: wherein the lens is a diverging lens. (Taghipour [0051],[0133]) Adeli teaches lens variations and configurations that imply but fall short of explicitly stating that a lens is specifically a diverging lens. However, Adeli does state in paragraph [0095] and other places that the radiation may be diverging from the sources and those sources including the combination of UV-led and lenses. At the very minimum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to utilize a diverging lens since it is generally disclosed in Adeli that diverging radiation and different configurations of lenses may be used to ensure proper sterilization for the conditions. (ADELI [0070]-[0109],[0095]) Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to utilize the diverging lens of Taghipour in Adeli since Taghipour explicitly discloses the use of diverging lenses and Adeli discloses the use of diverging radiation. (Taghipour [0051],[0133]) Regarding Claim(s) 19-20, ADELI does not adequately teach: comprising a filter for filtering fluid that passes through the ultraviolet disinfectant head into or out of the fluid container. wherein the central axis of the fluid container intersects the filter when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container. Taghipour teaches: comprising a filter for filtering fluid that passes through the ultraviolet disinfectant head into or out of the fluid container. wherein the central axis of the fluid container intersects the filter when the ultraviolet disinfectant head is attached to the fluid container. (Taghipour [0025)] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine water filtration as disclosed in Taghipour with the water sterilizer taught in Adeli to ensure the sterilized water is as cleaned by filtration. (Taghipour [0025), “The UV-LED reactor may be integrated in these devices/equipment along with other forms of water purification methods such as filtration.”] Conclusion 1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M LUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6493. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 M-F. 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, Robert Kim can be reached on (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SEAN M LUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594537
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DECOMPOSITION OF MOLECULES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598688
EUV EXCITATION LIGHT SOURCE AND EUV LIGHT SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580090
BISMUTH HALAID COMPOUND-PDMS COMPOSITE MATERIAL FOR X-RAY SHIELDING AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572078
RADIATION SOURCE MODULE AND LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573585
CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING APPARATUS, CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING METHOD, AND PHASE DIFFERENCE PLATE ADJUSTMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+27.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 416 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month