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 18/548,274 application filed on August 29, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-4 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 6-10 are drawn to a method.
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 08/29/2023. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its length. The abstract should be narrative and limited to a single paragraph between 50 and 150 words. Applicant’s abstract contains over 200 words. The language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases that one can imply, such as, “The present invention discloses,” “This disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This disclosure describes” etc.
Correction is required. See MPEP §608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3: In the phrase “. . . a filter material basket is movably arranged at a position, close to the water inlet pipe. . .,” the comma appears unnecessary.
Claims 6 and 7 recite: “. . .a gas-water ratio of (10-20):1” The necessity for the use of parentheses is unclear.
Claim 7 recites: “. . .preferably, the second power supply has a working voltage of 12-36V when water is fed to the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor, and the second power supply has a protection voltage of 5-12 V when the water is not fed to the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor; . . .” The formatting for the stated voltages is inconsistent. Whichever is used it should also be consistent with the other claims.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 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.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Due to the structure of portions of claim 1, it is unclear how all the various components are connected. The structure which goes to make up the apparatus must be clearly and positively specified and must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
For example, claim 1 recites: “. . .a main water inlet pipe, the three-dimensional electro-catalytic oxidation unit reactor, the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor and the light filter material filter unit reactor are sequentially connected; . . .” Also, although one may assume that the connection sequence is the order in which the components are recited, this is not clearly stated.
Also, in the phrase “. . . a water outlet pipe of the three-dimensional electro-flocculation phosphorus removal unit reactor is connected to a water inlet pipe of the light filter material filter unit reactor through a reflux pump and a check valve; . . .” it is unclear exactly how the structures are connected such as whether a reflux pump precedes a check valve or vice versa.
Claim 5 has a similar issue with respect to these structures.
In claim 3, the meaning of “. . . a water outlet pipe of the three-dimensional electro-catalytic oxidation unit reactor and the water inlet pipe of the three-dimensional electro-catalytic oxidation unit reactor are arranged diagonally . . .,” “. . . a water outlet pipe of the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor and the water inlet pipe of the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor are arranged diagonally . . .,” and “. . . the water outlet pipe of the light filter material filter unit reactor and the water inlet pipe of the light filter material filter unit reactor are arranged diagonally . . .” is unclear. Does this mean the respective pipes cross each other in a diagonal pattern, or that one pipe is situated diagonally across from the other? The drawings do not appear to show any diagonal pipe pattern.
In claim 5, the meaning of starting the various reactors is unclear. Claim 7 refers to a procedure for starting the three-dimensional electro-biological coupling unit reactor, but the starting step is not clear in claim 5. Also, there is no mention of how to ‘start’ the other reactors.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first power supply, the second power supply and the third power supply." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because the first mention of power supplies is in claim 3, but claim 5 references claim 1.
Claim 10 which depends on claim 5, also recites the above-noted phrases.
Claims 6 and 7 refer to a gas-water ratio of (10-20):1, but the source of the gas is unclear.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 depend on claims 1 and 5.
Conclusion
Examiner did not apply prior art at this time.
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections.
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