DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, corresponding to claims 13-21 in the reply filed on September 23rd, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 13-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 discloses that the flow guiding element is numeral 150 in parentheses in line 5. However, claim 13 also discloses that the flow guiding element is numeral 160 in parentheses in line 10. Thus, it is unclear whether the flow guiding element is numeral 150 or 160. Appropriate action is required. It is suggested to amend to “(150/160)” for the flow guiding element, or amend either flow guiding elements to “(150)” or “(160)” for congruency.
Claims 14-21 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pisharodi (U.S. Patent No. 11,052,169).
Pisharodi discloses a disinfection reactor for disinfecting liquids and/or gases comprising:
A disinfection chamber (Figures 1A, 1G, 1H & 7), the disinfection chamber having an inlet and an outlet (shown by airflow arrows) and a chamber wall (112/105A/105AA/105B/105BB);
A flow guiding element (155/155A’/155B’);
A radiation element (150/150A/150B) adapted to create a radiation barrier in the disinfection chamber (Figures 1A, 1G, 1H & 7); characterized in that
The disinfection chamber (Figures 1A, 1G, 1H & 7) has several volume ranges completely separated from each other by the radiation barrier, the flow guiding element (155/155A’/155B’) and the chamber wall (112/105A/105AA/105B/105BB). See column 7, line 49 to column 8, line 38; column 9, lines 1-22; column 9, line 44 to column 10, line 7.
Note that the flow guiding elements are the sheets (155/155A’/155B’) themselves (and the defined “V” shape in Figures 1G-1H) and the associated semicircular protuberances created by the radiation elements (150/150A/150B) best shown in Figures 1B & 1E. Note also that the radiation elements are UV lamps, UV lasers, or UV LED lights (column 6, lines 60-65), and that the flow guiding sheets are reflective (column 2, lines 43-49). Such a configuration of the reflective flow guiding sheets (155/155A’/155B’) with semicircular protuberances, and UV laser/UV LED radiation element (any single element labeled numeral 150/150A/150B) will create several volume ranges completely separated from each other by the radiation barrier (from reflection and configuration of flow guide sheets), the flow guiding sheet elements themselves, and the chamber walls (112/105A/105AA/105B/105BB).
As such, Pisharodi anticipates claim 13 as currently set forth.
Concerning claims 14 & 15, Pisharodi also discloses that the flow guiding element (155/155A’/155B’) has a curved flow guiding surface (Figures 1B, 1G & 1H).
With respect to claim 16, the reference further discloses that the disinfection chamber has a plurality of flow guiding elements (155/155A’/155B’) and/or flow guiding surfaces (Figures 1A, 1G & 1H).
Regarding claim 17, Pisharodi continues to disclose that each volume range is separated from an adjacent volume range by at least one radiation barrier column 7, line 49 to column 8, line 38; column 9, lines 1-22; column 9, line 44 to column 10, line 7.
Concerning claim 18, Pisharodi also discloses that the disinfection chamber has a plurality of radiation barriers formed by radiation elemnt(s) (150/150A/150B), and reflective surfaces (column 2, lines 43-49; Figures 1A, 1G & 1H).
With respect to claim 19, Pisharodi further discloses that the disinfection chamber has a transparent window for the radiation generated by the radiation element (column 9, lines 7-21).
Regarding claim 20, Pisharodi continues to disclose that the disinfection chamber comprises elements for deflecting the radiation generated by the radiation element (i.e., reflective lining; column 2, lines 43-49).
With respect to claim 21, the reference also discloses that the inlet is separated from the outlet by several volume ranges (Figures 1A, 1G & 1H).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
