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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending and have been fully considered.
The previously set forth objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
Furthermore, the previously set forth rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 May, 2026, with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered (see response filed 28 May, 2026, at pages 5-7). Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are persuasive in view of the amendments to claim 1, insofar as the primary reference—Silverman (US 2020/0282086)—does not disclose a helix pitch of the deflector is selected so that an area of a cross-section of the helical conduit is equal to an area of a cross-section of the inlet opening of the hollow body, as required by claim 1 as amended. The examiner does not fully agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to adjust the device of Silverman such that the inlet and helical conduit have equal cross sectional areas; nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Silverman alone provides limited teachings to guide a person of ordinary in the art to arrive at the claimed helix pitch and equal cross sectional areas. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration of the amended scope of the claims, a new grounds of rejection is set forth over Simpson et al. (US 20180305226 A1) evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units, published 2005 Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd). The new grounds of rejection—presented in further detail below—finds that Simpson fairly teaches each feature of claim 1, except that Simpson does not explicitly indicate that the cross section of the helical conduit has an area equal to the inlet opening of the hollow body. However, the grounds of rejection finds that Simpson does indicate that a laminar flow profile through the helical conduit is preferred for optimal disinfection ([0108], [0168]), that Simpson further suggests adjusting the size of an inlet hole (R) ([0168]), a helix pitch (O) ([0165]) and helical baffle cross sectional area (N) ([0164]) to achieve optimal flow conditions, and that it is well known—as evidenced by Mott—that abrupt changes in cross sectional along a flow path generate turbulence and resistance to flow. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 concludes that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Simpson such that a cross sectional area of the inlet opening is equal to a cross sectional area of the helical conduit of the system for the benefit of reducing resistance to flow through the system and promoting the generation of a laminar flow which ensures that a consistent amount of UV radiation is applied to fluid moving through the device.
The rejections of dependent claims 3-11 and linked claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 incorporate the core finding laid out with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that claim 1 recites the term “substantially” with respect to the sealing of the deflector to an inner surface of the side wall (claim 1, lines 6-8). Although the term “substantially” can be a term of relative degree, it is clear when interpreting the entire claim in view of the instant disclosure that the seal must be sufficiently airtight so that air cannot flow between the deflector and side wall and so the air is instead forced to flow along the helical path.
Claim 1 refers to a “cross-section of the helical conduit” (lines 11-12). Said cross-section is understood to be a region bound by the helical conduit (i.e., a region bound by adjacent turns of the helical deflector, a portion of the inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body, and either a central UV light source [as shown in instant Fig. 3] or a central axis of the device [as shown in instant Fig. 1]) and arranged on a plane which is normal (i.e., perpendicular or orthogonal) to the direction of air flow through the helical conduit.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2018/0305226 A1) evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units, published 2005 Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd, uploaded online to scetcivil.weebly.com 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson teaches a fluid treatment apparatus (apparatus for water treatment—tittle; ultraviolet reactor—[0156]) comprising a housing and a helix structure encircling an ultraviolet light (water chamber utilizing helical spiraling structure encircling around an ultraviolet light—abstract; Fig. 1 shows ultraviolet reactor…[with] helical spiral component in relation to the housing component—[0156]). The helix structure can mate with threads in the housing component (Fig. 2, [0158]; as these two structures conjoin together, no separation exists between the confines of the container walls and the spiral baffling—[0153]; helical line of housing component, noted via demarcation “T”…provides means for which the helical baffling can be screwed into and out of the purification system—[0170]; internal helical grooves within the housing container component as shown in demarcation “U”—[0171]) to define a helical conduit through which fluid entering the device must pass (helical baffling component…serves the purpose of directing the flow of water through the ultraviolet reactor in a way such that the exposure time of water to the ultraviolet light through the axial center of the device can have an increased ultraviolet exposure dosage—Fig. 4, [0160]).
The housing component includes at least an inlet opening (B, R) near a first base wall (S) (Figs. 1, 9; [0156], [0167]; demarcation “S” shows the flat edge top of the housing container—[0169]), and an outlet opening at an opposing end (water spirals from the influent inlet at the top of the device to the effluent exit at the bottom of the device—[0153]; housing compartment, chamber, or the like [may be] attached or implemented at the bottom facing of the housing container as shown in Fig. 2 for the baffling, redirection, narrowing, widening, or the otherwise change in direction of water resources leaving the device—[0158]; Simpson thus discloses an outlet opening at a bottom face of the housing).
The ultraviolet light source is arranged along a central axis of the device and secured by protective sleeves at opposing ends of the helical structure (“L’ and “K” represent a protective sleeve around the end of an ultraviolet lighting mechanism—[0163]; “C” shows catching structure, allowing straight-edged ultraviolet lighting mechanisms to be placed at the center axial of the spiral and rest atop C to allow security and stability of the lamp—Fig. 2, [0157]; ultraviolet lighting mechanism placed through opening A where it then runs longitudinally perpendicular to the top facing of the housing component—[0156]; “P” demarks an inner lining within structure “C” for allowing an ultraviolet lighting mechanism to rest securely in the container—Fig. 8, [0166]), and the ultraviolet light emits UVC light (system uses germicidal wavelength of ultraviolet light, UVC—[0153]).
Additionally, Simpson indicates that despite exemplary embodiments describing the use of the device with water, the disclosed device is also suitable for treatment of air (we recognize that this apparatus has the capacity to be utilized for further purposes including…atmospheric air—[0184]). Furthermore, Simpson indicates the inside edges and walls of the ultraviolet reactor and baffing can comprise reflective coatings ([0087]). See various Figures of Simpson below.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
366
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
362
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Simpson fairly teaches a device for disinfecting an air flow (system utilizing germicidal ultraviolet light for disinfection of water—see [0153]; can be used for disinfection of air—see [0184]) comprising
A hollow body (housing component) having an axis, a side wall, and two base walls (cylindrical container—[0153]; container housing component—[0156]; flat edge top of the housing container S—[0169]; housing compartment implemented at bottom facing of housing container—[0158]) provided with internal reflective surfaces (reflective coatings—[0087])
An inlet opening (B, R; [0156]) and an outlet opening (compartment at bottom facing of housing container for baffling or changing direction of water leaving the device—[0158], [0168]) formed in, or near, the respective base walls (see Figures),
At least one source of UV-C radiation disposed within the hollow body (germicidal wavelength of ultraviolet light UVC…water flows through helical screw-shaped water baffle revolving around a central ultraviolet light—[0153]; central hole in spiral allows ultraviolet light to pass down the axial center of the baffling component—[0165]);
Wherein the hollow body is cylindrical (cylindrical container—[0153]; see Figures) an outer edge of the deflector cooperates substantially sealingly with an inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body (helical baffle screws into hollow body—see [0153], [0158], [0170]-[0171]) so as to define with said wall a helical conduit (evident from Figures that the helical baffle, when screwed into the cylindrical housing and having an ultraviolet lamp inserted therein, defines a helical conduit);
Wherein the air flow moves through the hollow body from the inlet opening to the outlet opening such that all of the air flow traverses the helical conduit (usage of intricate water baffling design by which water, entering into a cylindrical container, flows through a helical screw-shaped water-baffle revolving around a central ultraviolet light—[0153])
Simpson further discusses various design considerations with respect to the system, particularly indicating that an inlet channel to the system should have a radius suitable for accommodating a desired flow condition ([0156]), especially for regulating the flow of fluid into the housing to achieve a laminar flow through the helical conduit ([0168]). A laminar flow through the system essentially yields a more predictable flow pattern through the device, allowing the device to be designed and operated to achieve a consistent level of microbial inactivation (For laminar flow, water moves relatively uniform throughout a system, which can be monitored using baffles and other flow control devices. This homogenous flow pattern allows for more specific microbial inactivation, preventing the turbidity of water from reducing inactivation levels while at the same time increasing the movement of microbes in water to maximize the probability of microbial inactivation. With this in mind, this invention pushes for more point-of-exit disinfection whereby laminar flow can become disinfected more easily. This application covers any attempts to maximize the amount of laminar flow within this system and reduce turbidity for optimal purification—[0108]).
It is well known in the art of fluid dynamics that abrupt changes in cross sectional flow area typically generates turbulence and resistance to flow; e.g., see the recreated portions of Mott below.
PNG
media_image5.png
720
980
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
732
988
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Simpson also discusses how the pitch (see demarcation “O”, Fig. 7) and cross sectional area (demarcation “N” in Fig. 6) of the helix should be adjusted with the needs for the functionality and operability of the system ([0165], [0164]).
Accordingly, although Simpson does not explicitly indicate that a helix pitch of the deflector is selected so that an area of a cross-section of the helical conduit is equal to an area of a cross-section of the inlet opening of the hollow body, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Simpson such that a cross sectional area of the inlet opening of the hollow body matches a cross-sectional area of the helical conduit for the benefit of reducing turbulence and resistance to flow through the system (consider portions of Mott included above), thus promoting a laminar flow which achieves optimal purification (see Simpson at [0108]).
Regarding claim 3, Simpson evidenced by Moot teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Simpson teaches an inlet conduit arranged along an extension of the helical conduit (piping “Y” connects inlet hole “R” of housing with water faucet “W”—Fig. 13, [0174]; additional piping and water storage mechanisms…can be connected to this housing container along demarcation S, or any other orientation to this device, through means including but not limited to screwing mechanisms…or via locking/snapping mating), and fairly suggests an outlet conduit similarly arranged along an extension of the helical conduit (effluent exit at bottom of the device—[0153]; effluent coupling located on a portion of the container housing—[0154]; demarcation “E” at bottom of housing in Fig. 2 may provide for connection with other apparatuses…a housing compartment, chamber, or the like may be attached at the bottom of the housing container—[0158]; Simpson thus fairly suggests an embodiment wherein an outlet of the housing leads from the helical conduit and extends into a further device/piping).
Regarding claim 5, Simpson evidenced by Moot teaches the device of claim 1. The deflector of Simpson defines a ruled helicoid, as best understood (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5 and 7 of Simpson: the helix has consistent pitch and a shape matching the disclosed embodiments depicted, e.g., in instant Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Simpson evidenced by Moot teaches the device of claim 1. The deflector of Simpson defines a right helicoid, as best understood (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5 and 7 of Simpson, which fairly depict the helix having a shape wherein the surfaces of the helix extend out orthogonally from a central axis).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson evidenced by Moot teaches the device of claim 1. Simpson further teaches the deflector has a reflective surface (reflective coatings on the inside edges and walls of the ultraviolet reactor and baffling can improve the overall irradiance within the system—[0087]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2018/0305226 A1) evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units), as applied to claim 1 above, and further view of Herskovitz et al. (US 2022/0154953 A1, with earliest priority date 19 November, 2020)
Regarding claim 4, Simpson evidenced by Moot teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Simpson further teaches that a length of a path along an outer perimeter of the helical conduit is significantly greater that the axial length of the hollow body (this inherent geometric relationship is evident from, e.g., Figs. 1-2). Simpson further suggests the geometry of the helical path should be designed to increase an exposure time of a fluid moving through the housing to ultraviolet light, to achieve a greater delivered UV dosage (Simpson discusses how adjustments to the length of the helix [G] and number of turns thereof [F] affects the exposure time of water within the ultraviolet rector and thus the exposure dosage placed on pathogens and other microorganisms in within the water—see [0159]). Simpson does not explicitly indicate the outer path of the helical conduit is greater than the length of the hollow body by a factor of 5 to 10.
However, in the analogous art of air purifier systems (title), Herskovitz et al. (US 2022/0154953 A1, with earliest priority date 19 November, 2020) teaches an embodiment of an air purifier system (100) comprising a helical air guide (114) positioned within a cylindrical housing (102) between an inlet end (top of housing 102 with filter 108 and intake slots 104) and an outlet end (bottom of housing 102 with fan 112 and outlet openings 106) of the housing, the air guide (114) wrapping around a central tubular UVC light source (110) and sealing to the light source and housing to ensure air continues along a helical pathway through the device (Figs. 1-4, [0209]-[0210]). The helical configuration creates a path which is 7 times longer than the length of the UV lamp (helical configuration of the air guide creates a longer dwell time along the light source 110, 7 times longer than a lamp effective length—[0211]), which ensures extended exposure of air to the light UV light from the light source ([0211]-[0212]; also see [0204]) for an improved purification effect. Herskovits also discloses various related embodiments of purifier systems with helical air guides which similarly achieve at least a 5 fold increase in the length of the path of air through the system relative to a length of the ultraviolet lamp (e.g., helical design offers a 565% longer path—[0236]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Simpson such that the path of the helical conduit (e.g., along an outer perimeter thereof) is between 5 and 10 times longer than an axial length of the UV light source and associated housing component, as substantially seen in Hershkovitz, for the benefit of increasing the dwell time of fluid within the system and thus increasing the exposure time of pathogens within the fluid to UVC light (see Herskovitz at [0204], Simpson at [0159]). With respect to said modification, it is noted that within the base device of Simpson, the length of the ultraviolet light source is substantially equal to the length of the housing component (see “C” in Fig. 2, [0157], and “K” in Fig. 5, [0163], which secure opposite ends of the UV lamp at opposite ends of the housing, such that the lamp and housing have a substantially equal axial length).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2018/0305226 A1) evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Almeida et al. (US 2021/0275714 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Simpson evidenced by Mott teaches the device of claim 7. While Simpson does suggest providing a reflective coating on the inner surfaces of the hollow body and the surface of the deflector ([0087]), Simpson does not explicitly indicate that such a reflective coating necessarily has a reflectance of a least 0.8 (80%).
However, Almeida et al. (US 2021/0275714 A1), in the analogous art of UVC antimicrobial breathing sterilization modules (title), identifies aluminum foil as a material that reflects UVC radiation and is suitable for the interior of a sterilizing module ([0045]). Furthermore, based on at least the instant specification, aluminum foil materials are known in the art which provide a reflectance of at least 92% (see instant application at page 6, lines 3-4), and it would otherwise be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to maximize the reflectance of the aluminum foil to reduce the loss of UVC energy (e.g., by absorbance or transmittance out of the chamber) and maximize the amount of UVC light delivered to pathogens within the fluid being treated. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a highly UVC reflective aluminum foil as the coating for the inner surfaces of the housing and helical baffle of Simpson—with a reflectance of at least 80%—for the benefit of maximizing the amount of UVC energy delivered to pathogens within the fluid being treated.
Regarding claim 9, Simpson evidenced by Mott and in view of Almeida teaches the device of claim 8. As modified in view of Almeida with respect to claim 8 above, Simpson teaches at least one of said surfaces (inner surface of hollow body, or deflector surface) has a coating comprising an aluminum film (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson evidenced by Mott and in view of Almeida teaches the device of claim 8. As modified in view of Almeida with respect to claim 8 above, Simpson further teaches at least one of said surfaces comprises a material optically specular in the UV-C band (Simpson: reflection can either be specular or diffuse—[0087]; Almeida: aluminum foil reflects UVC radiation—see [0045]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2018/0305226 A1) evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheong et al. (WO 2020/096523 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Simpson evidenced by Mott teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Simpson discusses potential embodiments wherein LEDs are used as an alternative to mercury lamps ([0100]), wherein such embodiments advantageously provide rapid starting and stopping time, do not require an electronic ballast to operate, and can produce ultraviolet irradiance without toxic mercury compositions ([0103]). Simpson also discusses an embodiment wherein LEDs spaced across intervals along a flow path achieved an improved UV exposure dosage per cross sectional area ([0134]). Accordingly, Simpson is sufficient at least to guide a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Simpson such that UV LEDs are used instead of a mercury lamp for the benefit of enabling a rapid irradiation start and stop time without the use of a ballast or toxic mercury components.
Simpson is not clear in particularly suggesting that the LEDs are arranged on the inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body.
However, in the analogous art of fluid sanitizing devices (title), Cheong et al. (WO 2020/096523 A1) teaches an embodiment (Fig. 4B) of a fluid sanitizing device (400) comprising a hollow body (chamber 410) with a baffle structure (panels 450) therein for extending the path of a fluid therethrough, wherein a plurality of ultraviolet light sources (420) are positioned at the inner walls of the hollow chamber for exposing the fluid moving through the chamber to a sufficient amount of sanitizing light ([0070]-[0071]). The sanitizing light emitter may be a UVC LED ([0076]). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an arrangement wherein the ultraviolet light source comprises one or more LEDs arranged on an inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body, as similarly seen in Cheong, for the benefit of delivering a sufficient amount of sanitizing radiation to the fluid flowing through the hollow body (consider Cheong at [0070]-[0071]; also consider embodiment of Simpson at [0134] which includes LEDs arranged at intervals along a flow path).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sata et al. (US 2012/0285459 A1, previously cited) in view of Simpson et al. (US 2018/0305226 A1) and evidenced by Mott (“Applied Fluid Mechanics”, Sixth Edition in SI Units).
Regarding claim 12, Sata teaches an assisted ventilation system (Fig. 1) comprising:
A ventilator (ventilator 100), a conditioning device (oxygen blender—see [0075]), an interface device for conveying a flow produced by the ventilator to the external airway of the patient (mask 115), and a disinfection device (10) connected to the interface device (115) via an emission conduit (exhalation gas tube 112, and tube 116) (gas disinfection and cleaning device 4 comprising ventilator 100—[0074]; ventilator 100 connected to an oxygen blender which mixes compressed air and compressed oxygen to generate inhalation gas—[0075]; breathing circuit comprises gas ports 101 and 102 of ventilator 100, gas tubes 111 and 112 extending from ventilator 100 to Y connector 113 mounted catheter mount 114 and connected to mask 115—[0077]—and a tube 116 connected to a gas exhaust port 103 of the ventilator 100 and leading to disinfection and cleaning device 1—[0078]).
See the system (4) of Sata in Fig. 1 below, and the disinfection device (1/10) thereof in Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image7.png
404
414
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
590
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The disinfection device (1) of Sata comprises at least an air inlet (11) and air outlet (10C) arranged at opposite ends of a hollow cylindrical body (10) which houses at least a UV light source (12) and a reflector (mirror finishing 10a) (Fig. 2, [0079]-[0080]), the disinfection device (1) of Sata functioning to sterilize the air exhaled by the patient (bacteria, mold, and the like in the air perish—[0085]-[0087]).
The disinfection device (see Fig. 2) of Sata does not fully define a disinfection device as claimed in claim 1, especially with respect to the device comprising a helical-shaped deflector having a cross sectional area equal with an air inlet of the device.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Simpson—in the analogous art of air disinfection (Simpson at [0184] discusses how the disclosed purification device can be applied for the treatment of air and gasses)—teaches a disinfection device which is largely consistent with the disinfection device as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above; Simpson is only deficient in that Simpson does not explicitly suggest a cross sectional area of the inlet is equal to a cross sectional area of the helical conduit). Simpson further indicates that the helical deflector advantageously increases the UV-C exposure of a fluid passing through the device by increasing the length of the path of the fluid through the device and thus the duration of time the fluid spends within the device (these baffles and the rotation number “F” serves the purpose of increasing the exposure time of water within the ultraviolet reactor thereby increasing the exposure dosage placed on pathogens and other microorganisms within the water—[0159]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sata by incorporating the disinfection device of Simpson into the system of Sata [in place of the existing disinfection device 1/10 of Sata] for the benefit of increasing the exposure of the exhaled air to UV-C light (see Simpson at [0159]) and thus achieving an improved disinfecting effect.
Furthermore, for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above, it would be obvious to configure said disinfection device such that the cross sectional area of the air inlet matches the cross sectional area of the helical conduit for the benefit of reducing a flow resistance through the device and promoting the development of a predictable, laminar flow (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simonson (US 2002/0096464 A1) teaches a fluid treatment device (abstract) wherein a vessel body of the device has an inlet and outlet with equal cross sectional areas in order to limit restrictions to flow ([0036]); the vessel may also include baffle plates with apertures which define an area equal or greater to a cross sectional area of the inlet such that no resistance to flow is created by passing through the baffle ([0037]; claim 10; also see [0006]). Accordingly, it is evident that equal cross sectional areas along a flow path can limit restrictions to flow along said path.
With respect to Herskovits et al. (US 2022/0154953 A1), it is noted that the key teaching of Herskovits relied upon with respect to claim 4—specifically, a helical path length which is 7 times longer than a length of a UV lamp surrounded by said helical path—is confirmed to be well supported by provisional application 63/115,816, filed 24 November, 2020, which is the priority document for Herskovits.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights