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 . 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/536,595 application filed on December 12, 2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, whereas claim 11 is drawn to an apparatus.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023, 4/16/2024 and 09/05/2025. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiren (US20190298879) in view of Emery et al. (US20210292193; Emery) (IDS of 4-16-2024)
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. With respect to method claims, the italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02. The analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference.
Regarding claims 1-11, Tiren discloses a method for disinfecting water such as drinking water, waste water, service water, or process water, by means of UV lighting in a reactor devicean inlet 102 in a reactor chamber of the reactor device, the water which is to be disinfected in the reactor chambera UV lighting system 104, 204 and disinfected water is discharged from the reactor chamber via an outlet 212, 312 ([0029]-[0031], Figs. 2-3), wherein the following is provided:
- provision of the UV light by means of an arrangement of UV light emitting diodes of the UV lighting system of the reactor device ([0012]);
- operating the UV light emitting diodes by means of a driver system 106 of the reactor device associated with the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes ([0012], [0029], where the electronic drive unit is a drive system);
- controlling an operation of the driver system by means of a control system 208 of the reactor device ([0017]);
- monitoring the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes during the disinfecting of the water by means of the UV light using a monitoring system of the reactor device, which is connected to the control system ([0029], [0030], [0033]);
- comparing a measurement value (intensity and/or flow rate), which is detected by means of the monitoring system, with a comparative value ([0016], [0029] “The UV intensity may be monitored by an UV sensor 112, connected to the electronic drive unit 106 which is safeguarding the system for adequate UV intensity to ensure adequate disinfection. The intensity may change for example due to different transmittance of the fluid and/or due to intensity variation of the light source. The electronic drive unit 106 may further control a variable valve (not shown), thus controlling the flow rate by using the UV intensity to determine a maximum value of the flow and thereby ensuring disinfection performance”);
- generating of control signals as a function of the result of the comparison of measurement value and comparative value by means of the control system ([0016], where “the electrical power supply is configured to selectively activate the first UV light source based on a predetermined condition”); and
- controlling the operation of the reactor device in accordance with the control signals ([0016], [0029]),
wherein a UV lighting system is used, in which the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes comprises a plurality of partial arrangements of UV light emitting diodes, which form a respective UV lamp and which in operation of the UV lighting system are operated separately from one another by means of the driver system (Figs. 2 and 3 embodiments) and are controlled separately from one another by means of the control system, in such a way that the at least one electrical operating parameter is detected respectively separately for the plurality of UV lamps, so that an individual monitoring of the respective partial arrangement of UV light emitting diodes is enabled, and the control system generates individual control signals for the respective partial arrangement of UV light emitting diodes ([0033], where “in all embodiments it should be noted that it is further possible to allow the user to decide if the water should be further disinfected or not, this way saving overall power consumption and lamp life. This implementation may easily be done by introducing e.g. a switch (not shown)”).
Therefore, Tiren discloses the claimed invention, except for the notion of monitoring of at least one electrical operating parameter and comparing a current measurement value for the at least one electrical operating parameter, and related.
Emery discloses a water purifying apparatus comprising: (i) at least one water inlet; (ii) an ultra-violet (UVC) radiation chamber connected to the water inlet(s); (iii) a plurality of UVC light emitting diodes (UVC-LEDs) for the emission of UVC light into the radiation chamber; (iv) a control to operate UVC-LEDs in use, and (v) at least one UVC-LED aging monitor to provide feedback to the control (Abstract, Figs. 1-9). An aging monitor is able to monitor at least the temperature and a power characteristic, including for example power input or output, of a UVC-LED ([0061]). The control is able to characterise the operation of a UVC-LED based on the feedback provided by an associated ageing monitor, to determine the operational ability of the UVC-LED, optionally over time, i.e. its ‘ageing’, and in particular whether the UVC-LED is sufficiently operable to provide the required UVC into the UVC radiation chamber, or is not, i.e. there is an UVC-LED operational failure (Id.). A power monitor is able to monitor a power characteristic such as voltage or current of the power of a UVC-LED in use, and provide either a constant or regular or intermittent signal to the control ([0063]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor at least one electrical operating parameter and compare a current measurement value, as recited, to improve the effectiveness and control of the disinfecting system ([0008], [0118], [0127]).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 11: Claim 11 is an independent apparatus claim but includes many of the same major implied or recited structural elements recited in claim 1. As such, in the interest of convenience and brevity, Examiner applies the claim 1 analysis herein, without repeating the text in its entirety.
Therefore, regarding claim 11, Tiren and Emery combined discloses or suggests a reactor device for disinfecting water such as drinking water, waste water, service water, or process water by means of UV lighting, with:
- a reactor chamber for receiving water which is to be disinfected (claim 1 analysis);
- a UV lighting system with an arrangement of UV light emitting diodes for the UV illuminating of the water which is to be disinfected in the reactor chamber
- a driver system, which is associated with the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes;
- a monitoring system (Emery, [0061]-[0066] and claim 1 analysis); and
- a control system (Emery, [0066]), which is connected to the monitoring system and to the driver system;
wherein the reactor device is configured for the following:
- delivering the water which is to be disinfected via an inlet in the reactor chamber, illuminating the water which is to be disinfected with UV light in the reactor chamber by means of the UV lighting system, and discharging of disinfected water from the reactor chamber via an outlet (claim 1 analysis);
- providing the UV light by means of the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes (claim 1 analysis);
- operating the UV light emitting diodes by means of the associated driver system (claim 1 analysis);
- controlling an operation of the driver system by means of the control system (claim 1 analysis);
- monitoring of at least one electrical operating parameter for the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes during the disinfecting of the water by means of the UV light with the aid of the monitoring system (claim 1 analysis);
- comparing a current measurement value for the at least one electrical operating parameter, which is detected by means of the monitoring system, with a comparative value for the at least one electrical operating parameter (claim 1 analysis);
- generating control signals as a function of the result of the comparison of current measurement value and comparative value for the at least one electrical operating parameter (claim 1 analysis); and
- controlling the operation of the reactor device in accordance with the control signals (claim 1 analysis),
wherein a UV lighting system is provided, in which the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes
Claim 2: The method is characterized in that a UV lighting system is used, in which the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes is formed on a rod-shaped UV lamp, wherein a lamp portion with the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes is arranged at least partially immersing into the water which is to be disinfected in the reactor chamber (Tiren, Figs. 2 & 3); Claim 3: A current measurement value and/or a voltage measurement value is detected for the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes, which is compared with a comparative current value / comparative voltage value (Emery, [0063], [0066]); Claim 4: A circuit arrangement with a comparator circuit and with a logic circuit is used (Emery, [0046]-[0052]); Claim 5: During the operation of the UV lighting system, on monitoring of the at least one electrical operating parameter for the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes, detection is carried out continuously ([0013], [0108], [0157], [0162], where it would have been obvious to operate continuously, if desired); Claim 6: The method is characterized in that on comparing of the current measurement value with the comparative value, it is determined which portion of the UV light emitting diodes of the arrangement are no longer functional (Emery, [0050], [0061], [0064]); Claim 7: The method is characterized in that on comparing the current measurement value with the comparative value, it is determined whether the current measurement value exceeds or falls below a comparative threshold value, and a warning signal is generated and emitted via an output system, which indicates a malfunction of the UV lighting system (Emery, [0050], [0061], [0064]; claim 1 analysis); Claim 8: The method is characterized in that the reactor device is an industrial-scale system for the disinfection of water, and the water which is to be disinfected is guided through the reactor chamber with a minimum throughput of approximately 2 m3 / h (Emery, [0100], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ any suitable size and flow rate); Claim 9: The method is characterized in that
- with the monitoring system, in addition to the electrical operating parameters, an optical operating parameter is detected, which indicates the transmission in the water which is to be disinfected for the wavelength of the UV light of the UV light emitting diodes;
- a current transmission measurement value is compared with a comparative transmission value; and - the control signals are generated as a function of the result of the comparison of current transmission measurement value and comparative transmission value (it would have been obvious to add any suitable and traditional detection and comparative means to supplement the electrical operating parameters); and Claim 10: The method is characterized in that control signals are generated, which bring about at least one of the following operating changes for the operation of the reactor device:
- switching off the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes or at least one of the partial arrangements hereof (Emery, [0163]);
- dimming the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes or at least one of the partial arrangements hereof;
- switching on the arrangement of UV light emitting diodes or at least one of the partial arrangements hereof (Emery, [0163]);
- connecting at least one further partial arrangement of UV light emitting diodes to an already switched-on partial arrangement of UV light emitting diodes;
- changing a throughflow quantity of the water which is to be disinfected in the reactor chamber by means of a throughflow regulating system associated with the reactor chamber, which is connected to the control system; and
- switching on or switching off a circulation system, which is configured to circulate the water which is to be disinfected in the reactor chamber and is connected to the control system (Emery, [0131]).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779