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 without traverse of Group A and Species A in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 46-48,50-57,59,62-63,71,95-105,107,111,114-116,118-119,122,124-125 and 131 are withdrawn.
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 6-8, and 16 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 6 recites “wherein the liquid inlet is configured to be movably coupled to the liquid source.” It is unclear what is meant by “movably coupled”. For the purposes of examination “movably coupled” will be interpreted to mean the inlet is flexible.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the liquid outlet is configured to be slidably connected to the liquid drain”. It is unclear what is meant by “slidably connected.” The specification of the present disclosure state “liquid outlets such as flexible, slidable or pivotable conduits such as hoses, concertina conduits or telescoping conduits could be connected to the drain so that they remain connected when the module is moved which avoids the need to disconnect it and avoids any liquid discharging or dripping outside the drain of the apparatus.” For the purposes of examination “slidably connected” will be interpreted to apply to a hose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 6-8, 12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sidney Ellner (US 4899056 A), hereinafter referred to as Ellner.
Regarding claim 1, Ellner teaches an apparatus for treating a liquid, the apparatus having a frame and one or more treatment module(s) where each module includes:
i. a liquid inlet for receiving liquid from a liquid source (flexible hose 32);
ii. a liquid outlet for discharging liquid to a liquid drain (flexible hose 34);
iii. one or more liquid conduits between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
and iv. one or more radiation sources for treating the liquid in that module (ultraviolet light lamp modules 12);
wherein one or more of the treatment modules is movable relative to the frame (As overhead transport crane optionally moves modules 12 back and forth between cleaning tank 26 (col. 3, lines 45-47)) without disconnection of the module(s) from the liquid source or disconnection of the module(s) from the liquid drain.
If the modules of Ellner are moved by the crane such that the flexible hoses are still connected to the downstream and upstream sealing walls, the module is not disconnected from the liquid source or from the liquid drain.
Regarding claim 6, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the liquid inlet is configured to be movably coupled to the liquid source (flexible hose 32).
Regarding claim 7, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 6 wherein the liquid inlet includes a flexible inlet conduit (flexible hose 32).
Regarding claim 8, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 7 wherein the flexible inlet conduit is a hose (flexible hose 32).
Regarding claim 12, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the liquid outlet is configured to be movable while maintaining any discharge into the liquid drain (flexible hose 34).
Regarding claim 16, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 12 wherein the liquid outlet is configured to be slidably connected to the liquid drain (flexible hose 34).
Regarding claim 18, Ellner teaches the apparatus of claim 12 wherein the liquid outlet and/or a connection to it is/are configured to move within an elongate recess of the liquid drain (flexible hose 34).
A hose is configured to move within an elongate recess of a drain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 3, 5, 19-22, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horst Wedekamp (US 6576189 B1), hereinafter referred to as Wedekamp, in view of Kathleen Hanley (US 6565802 B1), hereinafter referred to as Hanley.
Regarding claim 1, Wedekamp teaches an apparatus for treating a liquid, the apparatus having a frame (Fig. 1 as annotated below) and one or more treatment module(s) where each module includes:
i. a liquid inlet for receiving liquid from a liquid source (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
ii. a liquid outlet for discharging liquid to a liquid drain (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
iii. one or more liquid conduits between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet (Fig. 1 as annotated below); and
iv. one or more radiation sources for treating the liquid in that module (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
[AltContent: textbox (Drain (discharge chamber 20))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
570
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein one or more of the treatment modules is movable without disconnection of the module(s) from the liquid source or disconnection of the module(s) from the liquid drain (The individual UV radiation sources 36 are arranged and mounted in a frame-like holder 32, and the entire group of UV radiation sources 36 can be inserted into the irradiation chamber 18 and removed from it by means of handles 34 together with the holder 32 (col. 5, lines 33-37))
If the module of Wedekamp is pulled by handles 34 such that the module is still partly submerged in the water, the module is not disconnected from the liquid source or from the liquid drain.
Wedekamp fails to explicitly teach wherein one or more of the treatment modules is movable relative to the frame.
However, Hanley teaches wherein one or more of the treatment modules is movable relative to the frame (Fig. 5 as annotated below).
[AltContent: textbox (Frame is a rack)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
666
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described Wedekamp to include the teachings of Hanley by mounting the module to a rack on rails, as shown in Hanley, so that the module can slide out from the rack and the module is movable relative to the frame. By placing the module of Wedekamp on a rack with rails the module becomes more stable in the fluid and is easier to remove from the chamber for maintenance.
Regarding claim 3, Wedekamp fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the frame is a rack.
However, Hanley teaches the frame is a rack (Fig 5 above).
Regarding claim 5, Wedekamp fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 3 wherein each of the one or more movable modules is mounted to the rack on rails so that it can slide out from the rack.
However, Hanley teaches wherein each of the one or more movable modules is mounted to the rack on rails so that it can slide out from the rack (Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 19, Wedekamp teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising the liquid drain (discharge chamber 20).
Regarding claim 20, Wedekamp teaches the apparatus of claim 19 configured such that an opening from which liquid flows out of the liquid outlet, or a connection to it, remains within the liquid drain to retain liquid in the apparatus when the respective module is moved relative to the frame.
If the module of Wedekamp is pulled by handles 34 such that the module is still partly submerged in the water, the outlet can remain within the liquid drain to retain liquid in the apparatus when the module is moved relative to the frame.
Regarding claim 21, Wedekamp teaches the apparatus of claim 1 configured to support open channel flow of liquid through the liquid conduit(s) (open top 10).
As described by the specification of the present disclosure “[t]he channel 24 that the liquid flows in is enclosed by a bottom face and side faces, leaving the top face open, or at least not in contact with the liquid. This type of liquid flow within a conduit with a free (unconstrained) liquid surface is known as "open channel flow". The open channel design allows the arrangement of one or 10 more ultraviolet radiation sources 25 above the open top face of the channel.” Wedekamp teaches an open top design and therefore, is configured to support open channel flow of liquid through the conduits.
Regarding claim 22, Wedekamp teaches the apparatus of claim 21 configured to support supercritical flow of liquid through the liquid conduit(s) (An optimum efficiency and a maximum throughput of the device are achieved with this invention on reaching a flow rate of approximately 4 m/sec, i.e., with a change in the liquid medium from pure flow to so-called supercritical flow (col. 2, lines 62-65)).
Regarding claim 31, Wedekamp teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the radiation sources include UV radiation sources (UV radiation sources 36).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedekamp, in view of Hanley, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yngvar S. Owesen (US 5891399 A), hereinafter referred to as Owesen.
Regarding claim 2, Wedekamp fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein at least one of the treatment modules has an opening lid and allows access into the module when its lid is open.
However, Owesen teaches wherein at least one of the treatment modules has an opening lid and allows access into the module when its lid is open (Fig. 4A as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
501
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Wedekamp to include the teachings of Owesen by incorporating a lid that allows access to the module when the lid is open. Doing so protects the UV lights from damage while still providing easy access for maintenance.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedekamp, in view of Hanley, and Owesen, and in further view of Victor Henri (GB 191012947), hereinafter referred to as Henri.
Regarding claim 23, Wedekamp fails to teach the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the one or more radiation sources of each module are located in the lid in a space that is enclosed by a radiation- transmissive window when the lid is closed and the apparatus is in use.
However, Owesen teaches wherein the one or more radiation sources of each module are located in the lid in a space (Fig. 4A above).
Further, Henri teaches a radiation transmissive window at the top of the apparatus (window 5 of quartz)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Wedekamp to include the teachings of Henri by incorporating the quartz window on the lid of Owesen. The lid prevents contamination by infected air. Incorporating the window allows for monitoring the amount of radiation being supplied to the liquid without hindering the protection provided by the lid.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedekamp and Hanley, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of George Traubenberg (US 7390406 B2), hereinafter referred to as Traubenberg.
Regarding claim 25, Wedekamp fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the apparatus is configured to treat a plurality of separate flows of liquid through respective separate ones of a plurality of treatment modules.
However, Traubenberg teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to treat a plurality of separate flows of liquid through respective separate ones of a plurality of treatment modules (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
372
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Wedekamp to include the teachings of Traubenberg my incorporating a plurality of treatment modules such that the apparatus is configured to treat a plurality of separate flows of liquid. Doing so allows more fluid to be sanitized at once.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedekamp, in view of Hanley, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kathleen Hanley (US 6986867 B2), hereinafter referred to as Hanley67.
Regarding claim 29, Wedekamp fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the apparatus is 1 m or less in width.
However, Hanley67 teaches wherein the apparatus is 1 m or less in width (light box 10 may be approximately 100 cm wide (para. [0042])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention t modify the device described in Wedekamp to include the teachings of Hanley67 such that the apparatus is 1 m in width. “A compact instrument allows, for example, for placement of a greater number of instruments per treatment center and/or may allow two or more instruments to be stacked on top of each other (Hanley; para. [0043]).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rodney Kenley (US 5591344) hereinafter referred to as Kenley - (relevant to claims 6-8, 12, 16, and 18 for the use of flexible hoses).
Huang, Huijian. Evaluating a novel UV device for wastewater disinfection: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering in Environmental Technology and Sustainable Energy at Massey University, Manawatu Campus, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Diss. Massey University, 2014. - (relevant to claims 1,3, and 5 for the use of an inlet, outlet, a liquid conduit, and radiation sources, wherein the module is movable relative to a frame, and the frame is a rack with rails)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights