DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites the limitation “…wherein, at any position along a longitudinal axis of the fluid purifying device, across-section of the first duct…” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error of a limitation reciting “…a cross-section of the first duct…”. In this action, Examiner will assume the limitation is in regards to the cross section of the tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 16-21 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forney.
Regarding claim 16, Forney discloses a fluid purifying device (method and system for establishing flow in a fluid, see abstract; for disinfection by UV radiation, see paragraph [0007]) comprising:
an inlet opening for a fluid and an emission opening for the fluid (fluid enters through inlet 450, see paragraph [0056]; outlet 430 positioned at the base, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0057]);
an outer tube having a first end positioned on a first side of the fluid purifying device relative to a reference plane, the inlet opening for the fluid being defined at the first end of the outer tube (outer tube having inlet 450 on a first end relative to a reference plane (e.g. above the annotated reference plane in the figure below), see annotated figure below. The instant specification (specifically paragraph [0013] of the instant application) defines the “reference plane” as an ideal plane that cuts in two, substantially in half, the device perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the device, as annotated in the figure below),
an inner tube, arranged within the outer tube and having a second end positioned on a second side of the device, opposite to the first side relative to the reference plane, the emission opening for the fluid being defined at the second end of the inner tube (inner tube having outlet 430 on a second end relative to a reference plane (e.g. below the annotated reference plane in the figure below), see annotated figure below);
an intermediate tube, arranged between the outer tube and the inner tube so as to define a mandatory and continuous fluid path between the inlet opening and the emission opening, the fluid path including a first stretch confined between the outer tube and the intermediate tube, the second stretch confined between the intermediate tube and the inner tube, and a third stretch confined within the inner tube (intermediate tube between outer tube and inner tube, all forming continuous fluid paths through channels 405A (e.g. first stretch) and 445 (e.g. second stretch), see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0056]), and
a source of UV-C radiation arranged within the outer tube so as to irradiate the fluid at least along the first stretch of the fluid path (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light, see paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Forney discloses the source of UVC radiation is arranged so as to directly irradiate the fluid along at least one of the first stretch and the second stretch, and so as to irradiate at most indirectly the fluid along the third stretch of the fluid path (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light along the first, second, and third paths, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 18, Forney discloses the fluid path includes a first passage for the fluid between the first stretch and the second stretch (channel 405A connects outer tube and intermediate tube, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0056]) and a second passage for the fluid between the second stretch and the third stretch (channel 440 connects intermediate tube and inner tube, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0056]), the outer tube being in fluid communication with the intermediate tube through the first passage, and the intermediate tube being in fluid communication with the inner tube through the second passage (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Forney discloses the first passage is define at respective second ends, positioned on the second side of the fluid purifying device relative to the reference plane, of the outer tube, and of the intermediate tube (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 20, Forney discloses the second passage is defined at the first end of the outer tube, positioned on the first side of the fluid purifying device relative to the reference plane, of the inner tube (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 21, Forney discloses the first stretch of the fluid path extends within a first duct defined between the outer tube and the intermediate tube (channel 405A (e.g. first stretch) extends between the outer tube and the intermediate tube, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0056]), the second stretch of the fluid path extends within a second duct defined between the intermediate tube and the inner tube (channel 440 (e.g. second stretch) extends between the intermediate tube and inner tube, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0056]), and the third stretch of the fluid path extends within a third duct defined by the inner tube (circular hollow 445 (e.g. third stretch) is within the inner tube, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0057]),
wherein, at any position along a longitudinal axis of the fluid purifying device, a cross section of the first duct has a larger area with respect to a cross section of the second duct (as the intermediate and inner tubes are, as defined in claim 16, placed within the outer tube, all cross-sectional areas will be taken from the respective outer walls to the central axis positioned along the rotor 405 of Fig. 4. From this interpretation, the first duct has a larger area than the second duct, see annotated figure above), and
wherein, at any position along the longitudinal axis of the fluid purifying device comprised between the first and second ends of the inner tube, the cross section of the second duct has a larger area with respect to a cross section of the third duct (as the intermediate and inner tubes are, as defined in claim 16, placed within the outer tube, all cross-sectional areas will be taken from the respective outer walls to the central axis positioned along the rotor 405 of Fig. 4. From this interpretation, the second duct has a larger area than the third duct, see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 29, Forney discloses the source of UVC radiation is arranged so as to irradiate the fluid parallel to a flow direction along the fluid path (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light parallel to the flow, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 30, Forney discloses the radiation emitted by the source of UVC radiation has a wavelength greater than or equal to 255 nm and less than or equal to 300 nm (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light, see paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 31, Forney discloses the radiation emitted by the source of UVC radiation has a wavelength greater than or equal to 270 nm and less than or equal to 290 nm (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light, see paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 32, Forney discloses the source of UVC radiation comprises at least one of a first UVC emitter, arranged at the first end of the outer tube; and a second UVC emitter, arranged at the second end of the outer tube (energy source 425 can be integral with annular walls to emit UV light, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 33, Forney discloses the second UVC emitter is arranged at the second end of the outer tube so as to irradiate the first stretch and the second stretch of the fluid path (energy source 425 can be integral with inner annular walls 420 to emit UV light, see annotated figure above and paragraph [0058]; UV ranges in the germicidal range from 200-280 nm, see paragraph [0007] known as the UVC range).
Regarding claim 34, Forney discloses a feeding member configured to feed the fluid to be purified within the inlet opening (fluid enters the reactor through inlet 450, feeding member is inherent, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0056]).
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.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney.
Regarding claim 22, Forney fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the inner radius of the inner tube and an inner radius of the outer tube is less than or equal to ½. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to vary the dimensions of the outer tube and inner tube without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 23, Forney fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the inner radius of the inner tube and the inner radius of the outer tube is between 1/5 and 1/2 , endpoints included. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to vary the dimensions of the outer tube and inner tube without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 24, Forney fails to explicitly disclose a ratio between a longitudinal extension of a non-tapered portion of the intermediate tube and an inner radius of the intermediate tube is equal to or greater than 4. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to vary the dimensions of the intermediate tube without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 25, Forney fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the longitudinal extension of the non-tapered portion of the intermediate tube and the inner radius of the intermediate tube is between 5 and 25, endpoints included. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to vary the dimensions of the intermediate tube without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 26-28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forney in view of Dhiman et al. (US PGPub 2019/0225509, hereinafter Dhiman).
Regarding claim 26, Forney fails to disclose at a first end thereof, positioned on the first side of the fluid purifying device relative to the reference plane, the intermediate tube has a closed tapered portion having a cross section with a decreasing radius moving towards the inlet opening of the fluid purifying device.
Dhiman teaches portions of the UV treatment chamber forms a tapered conical shape (see paragraph [0049]). Dhiman a tapered shape advantageously offers uniform distribution of UV light, and elimination of dead zones associated with sudden changes in flow cross sections, leading to a narrow residence time distribution (see paragraph [0049]).
Dhiman modifies Forney by suggesting portions of UV treatment chamber be formed as tapered conical shapes.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV treatment for fluid systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Forney by having portions of UV treatment chamber be formed as tapered conical shapes for the purpose of elimination of dead zones associated with sudden changes in flow cross sections, leading to a narrow residence time distribution as taught by Dhiman (see paragraph [0049])
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Dhiman and Forney fails to explicitly disclose the conical wall forms with the longitudinal axis of the fluid purifying device an angle between 20 and 50 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify angle of the tapered section to optimize the fluid flow dynamics as taught by Dhiman, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Dhiman and Forney fails to explicitly disclose the conical wall forms with the longitudinal axis of the fluid purifying device an angle between 30 and 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify angle of the tapered section to optimize the fluid flow dynamics as taught by Dhiman, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 35, Forney fails to disclose at least one of the outer tube, the intermediate tube, and the inner tube are made of a material that is not transparent to UVC radiation and has a reflectivity to UVC radiation between 70-100%, endpoints included.
Dhiman discloses a preferable module sidewall material that is at least 90% reflective to UV light, specifically in the UVC range (e.g. 100-320 nm) (see paragraph [0024]). Dhiman teaches having a sidewall material that is reflective to UV light enhances antimicrobial treatment of fluids (see paragraph [0024]).
Dhiman modifies Forney by suggesting the sidewalls be reflective in the UVC range.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV treatment for fluid systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Forney by providing the sidewalls with a material that is reflective to the UVC range of radiation for the purpose of enhancing antimicrobial treatment of fluids as taught by Dhiman (see paragraph [0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878