DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 9-11 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 applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because of the following reasons:
Claim 9 requires a plurality of third ultraviolet lamps. Since the claim nor any claim from which it depends requires a first or second ultraviolet lamp, claim 9 is indefinite since it is unclear how many lamps are required by the claim.
The balance of the listed claims are also rejected since claims suffer the same defects as the claims from which they depend.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (U.S. 2003/0094406 A1), hereinafter “Smith”.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, Smith teaches a water sterilizer that sterilizes, without heating [0026], water that is used by a content-filling system that fills a content in a container1, the water sterilizer comprising:
a first sterilizer 68 that sterilizes the water; a first sterile filter 72 that is disposed downstream of the first sterilizer; and a second sterile filter 74 that is disposed downstream of the first sterile filter, wherein the first sterilizer sterilizes the water by using an ultraviolet ray.
As for claim 2, Smith additionally teaches a foreign-material removal filter 64 that removes foreign material in the water (in 0002, Smith teaches pretreatment can include multimedia filter to remove particulates), wherein the first sterilizer 68 is disposed downstream of the foreign-material removal filter.
Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dempo (U.S. 5,512,178), hereinafter “Dempo”.
As for claim 3, Dempo teaches a water sterilizer that sterilizes, without heating (Dempo doesn’t require heating for producing super high purity water used e.g. for semiconductors; col. 7, lines 5-64), water that is used by a content-filling system that fills a content in a container2, the water sterilizer comprising:
a first sterilizer 18 that sterilizes the water;
a first sterile filter (precision filter 25) that is disposed downstream of the first sterilizer; and
a second sterile filter (precision filter 26) that is disposed downstream of the first sterile filter, wherein the first sterilizer sterilizes the water by using an ultraviolet ray.
PNG
media_image2.png
375
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Dempo additionally teaches a foreign-material removal filter (16, 17) that removes foreign material in the water, wherein the first sterilizer 18 is disposed downstream of the foreign-material removal filter.
As for claim 1, Dempo additionally teaches wherein the second sterile filter 26 is disposed downstream of a second UV sterilizer 24.
As for claim 4, the second sterilizer 24 is disposed between the first and second sterile filters (25 and 26).
As for claim 13, the claim further recited that the water sterilizer sterilizes water having a specified electrical conductivity. This limitation merely describes a characteristic of the water being treated, rather than imposing any structural limitation on the claimed water sterilizer. The system of Dempo is capable of sterilizing water across a range of electrical conductivities, including the recited value and therefore inherently meets the limitation.
Claim 14 further recites that a cumulative irradiation amount of UV rays applied to the water is within a specified range. This limitation merely describes an operational result or condition of use, rather than imposing any additional structural limitation on the claimed water sterilizer. The UV sterilizer of Dempo is capable of delivering UV irradiation within the recited range by appropriate selection of lamp intensity, exposure time, and/or flow rate, etc. and therefore inherently meets the limitation.
Claim 15 further recites that the water sterilizer continues to sterilize water without interruption while a product bottle is manufactured and filled by the content filling system. This limitation merely describes an operational condition and intended use of the water sterilizer in the environment of a content filling system, and does not impose any additional structural limitation on the water sterilizer itself. The water sterilizer of Dempo is capable of continuous operation during content filling and therefore inherently meets the limitation.
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 that are applied 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 5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dempo.
The equation of claim 5 describes the microbial level of the sterilized product to be equal to or less than a target level. This would have been obvious depending upon the desired purity at the outlet and the selected purification route through the system (e.g. A+B or A+B+C in Dempo).
The structural components of claims 16 and 17 are taught by Dempo as expanded above. The additional limitation of a certain Fo value to satisfy the given equation would have been obvious depending upon the characteristics of the water being treated and the desired outcome.
As for claims 18-20, Dempo teaches precision (sterile) filters 25a-c and 26a-b. Precision filters including a mesh sized to physically retain microorganisms based on size exclusion are well known in the art and would have been obvious. Dempo teaches a second sterile filter for removing contaminants smaller than the first sterile filter (e.g. 25a removes to a level of 5 microns, while and 26a removes to a level of 1 micron). Also, Dempo teaches both sterile (precision) filters to remove contaminants in the claimed range (see col. 7, lines 10-18).
Claims 1-5 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2020/0297000 A1), hereinafter “Wang” in view of Dempo.
As for claim 21, Wang teaches a content filling plant comprising an aseptic filling connector for filling a bottle [0072] with a sterile mix of a concentrate (undiluted) and the sterilized water (see e.g. figure 4c). He also teaches producing sterilized water in a system including virus deactivation (via flow through a UV device [0045], as well as a plurality of sterile filters (see figures 2 and 4c). Wang doesn’t specify the exact arrangement of claim 1 but, as shown above, such is taught by Dempo. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the water sterilizing system of Dempo in the invention of Wang, since Dempo teaches the benefit of producing super pure water (col. 4, lines 40+) further perfecting the apparatus of Wang. Also, a cap-mounting device is implicitly disclosed as without cap-mounting the disinfected water within the bottles would get quickly contaminated by bacteria from the ambient air and would therefor have been obvious.
Also, as expanded above the limitations of claims 1-5 and 13-20 are also taught or made obvious in view of Dempo.
Claims 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dempo in view of JP 2006116536 A, hereinafter ‘536. Dempo teaches UV sterilizers but doesn’t specify the lamps or the inclusion of a baffle. However, such is taught by ‘536.
‘536 teaches a UV water sterilizer including a cylindrical-shaped body:
The sterilization tank according to the present invention has a shape of a stainless steel square column tube, hexagonal column tube, cylindrical tube, or elliptical column tube that has an internal mirror finish, and opens a portion of the upper and lower portions facing each other, and a processing channel is formed. It is alternately connected so as to form a honeycomb structure. A sterilization tank is a structure which can insert inflow and outflow of treated water by inserting an ultraviolet lamp. The structure is such that the treated water is continuously communicated and sterilized.
and having an inlet at a lower3 end and an exit at an upper end, wherein one lamp is disposed at a center of the body and a plurality of second lamps are disposed around the first lamp [as in claims 6-7].
‘536 also teaches the lamps to be e.g. a low-pressure mercury lamp and are arranged in the direction in which water flows (see e.g. figures 1 and 4) [as in claims 8-9 and 11].
The ultraviolet irradiation unit may include an ultraviolet lamp socket and an ultraviolet lamp, and the ultraviolet lamp may be a low-pressure mercury lamp with a low output.
He also teaches baffle plates 109 that restrict the flow of water in the body [as in claim 12].
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the water sterilizer configuration of ‘536 in the invention of Dempo since ‘536 teaches the benefits of treating any given amount of water and sterilizing germs in natural water (abstract) which is the goal of Dempo and also the benefit of effective treatment in a compact device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dempo in view of ‘536 and in further view of Girodet et al. (U.S. 7,683,354 B2), hereinafter “Girodet”.
The modified Dempo doesn’t specify lamps that extend in different directions when viewed in the direction in which water flows. But such is taught by Girodet. As shown in figure 1, Girodet teaches UV lamps (41, 42) that extend in different directions along the flow of water [as in claim 10]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the lamps of the modified Dempo to extend as in Girodet since Girodet teaches the benefit of improving the distribution of the UV radiation and the dose distribution (col. 2, lines 40-46).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p 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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
1 This phrase is considered to be an intended use that fails to further limit the apparatus beyond the elements listed in the body of claim.
2 This phrase is considered to be an intended use that fails to further limit the apparatus beyond the elements listed in the body of claim.
3 Applicant’s claims do not include a fixed orientation to give directional meaning to the terms “upper” and “lower”. However such would have been within ordinary skill.