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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “radially symmetric radiation source 1” and “parabolic reflector 2” as described in the specification (Spec. 22:4-5). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…absorbing surfaces formed and shaped to stop transmission of electromagnetic radiation from the interior of the chamber to an exterior location” in claim 15.
The term “surface” is used to refer to a generic item with the function of absorbing and stop radiation transmission rather than to a particular, identifiable structure. This is evident in the specification, wherein the word “surface” is used to describe a variety of different devices, all of which are separately defined by additional descriptions of purpose, function, structure, or origin.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 13 each recites “a source of the radiation source” which appears to include an extra “source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 15-16 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. Further, claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim limitation “absorbing surface” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the disclosure offers no example, explanation, or evidence of a surface that absorbs and stops radiation transmission. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation reciting that “at least 50% and more preferably at least 80% or 90% of the reflections from the reflective surfaces are specular reflections” renders the scope of the claim unclear. The phrase “more preferably” appears to identify preferred embodiments rather than a mandatory claim limitation, and it is therefore unclear whether the claim requires at least 50%, at least 80%, or at least 90% of the reflections to be specular reflections. Claims 2-20 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “wherein the flow is at right angles to the sides” is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the flow.” Accordingly, it is unclear what flow is required to be at right angles to the sides.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation that “a majority of radiation paths” undergo at least ten reflections is indefinite because the claim does not identify the population of radiation paths from which the majority is determined, such as all radiation paths emitted by the source, all radiation paths entering the reaction chamber, or only radiation paths remaining above a threshold amplitude. Claim 9 is further indefinite because the phrase “at least ten and preferably more than one hundred reflections” makes it unclear whether the claim requires at least ten reflections or more than one hundred reflections.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation that the radiation source “has a dimension which is less than 0.03 times the focal length of the mirror” is indefinite because a radiation source may have multiple dimensions, such as length, width, diameter, or a maximum dimension, and the claim does not identify which dimension is required to satisfy the recited relationship.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “the offset between each beam and a next beam after a reflection” is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “offset” in the claim. Further, the claim does not previously introduce a plurality of beams and does not clearly identify what constitutes “each beam” or “a next beam,” and thus it is also unclear whether the recited beams are separate radiation beams or successive portions of a single reflected radiation path, how the offset is measured, or which reflection establishes the offset. Further, the requirement that “the beams form a complete curtain” does not provide an objective boundary for determining when the curtain is complete or what region must be completely covered.
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 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0310866 A1 [hereinafter Weidmann] in view of US 2020/0164099 A1 [hereinafter Dürrstein].
Regarding Claim 1:
Weidmann teaches a method for applying electromagnetic radiation to reactive materials in a reaction chamber (Abstract: apply laser beam to a sample including reactive materials within a sample cell) comprising:
introducing the electromagnetic radiation into the chamber (Figs. 6-7, para. [0080]: direct laser beams to enter the sample cell shown in Fig. 7, through the entry and exit aperture 24 and 26); and
increasing the probability of interaction of the electromagnetic radiation with the reactant materials by using multiple reflections to increase the optical path length of the electromagnetic radiation within the reaction chamber for which the amplitude of the electromagnetic radiation is above a threshold value (Figs. 6-7 and paras. [0052, 0078]: placing multiple reflective facet 16 on each side (with reflective surface 12 and 14) of the sample cell, “the use of multiple reflecting facets provides a longer path length of the laser beam 22 through the sample” and thus increase the interaction of the laser beam with the sample material);
PNG
media_image1.png
593
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the reaction chamber includes a plurality of pairs of opposed reflective surfaces of the chamber (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 above, concave reflecting facet 16a and 16b, 16c and 16d, etc. forming pairs of opposed reflective surfaces);
the reflective surfaces of each pair being arranged to cause reflections of the electromagnetic radiation back and forth between the reflective surfaces within a volume defined by the reflective surfaces (as shown in annotated Fig.3, laser beam 22 is first reflected on concave reflecting facet 16b, and then reflected on its opposite concave reflecting facet 16a (“back and forth”));
the reflective surfaces of each pair being spaced one from the other so as to define a first side of the volume on one side of the reflective surfaces and so as to define a second side of the volume on an opposed side of the reflective surfaces (as shown in annotated Fig.3, the first side and the second side define a first reflective region (“volume”) including the first pair of concave reflecting facets 16a and 16b);
wherein the pairs are arranged side by side so that radiation escaping through a side of one volume enters a side of a next adjacent volume (as shown in annotated Fig.3, after reflected on 16a, some laser beam escaped from the first reflective region and enters the adjacent region defined by the second pair of concave reflecting facets 16c and 16d).
However, Weidmann does not expressly teach wherein at least 50% and more preferably at least 80% or 90% of the reflections from the reflective surfaces are specular reflections and wherein at least one of the reflective surfaces of each pair is a concave mirror.
Dürrstein teaches a disinfection device comprises several radiating devices 40, and opposing reflective surfaces 34, 35 “each form a concave mirror” (Fig. 1 and para. [0039]). Since concave mirror inherently produces specular reflection, Dürrstein at least teach 50% or more of the reflections are specular reflections.
Weidmann teaches using multiple pairs of concave reflecting facet to reflect radiations within a reaction cell and thereby increase the optical path length of the radiation. Dürrstein teaches, for a disinfection device, configuring opposing reflective surfaces as concave mirrors such that “the radiation is reflected at least substantially in the longitudinal direction between opposing reflection surfaces,” and expressly explains that this arrangement significantly increases treatment effectiveness by increasing the distance travelled between reflection points and thereby multiplying the probability that photons interact with microorganism (paras. [0039-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the paired concave reflecting facets of Weidmann as concave mirrors, as taught by Dürrstein, to further lengthen and direct the radiation oath through the reactive material and thereby increase the probability of radiation interacting with the reactive material and improve treatment effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 2:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein the plurality of pairs define a stack of the volumes side by side where the radiation can pass between each volume and a next adjacent volume (Fig. 3 shows multiple pairs of concave reflecting facets and each pair defines a reflective region next to the adjacent region).
Regarding Claim 3:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 2. Dürrstein further teaches wherein end ones of the volumes have a reflective side wall on an outer one of the sides thereof (Fig. 2 and para. [0062]: “the inner wall of the shell of the pressure vessel 12 can be equipped with a corresponding reflection surface 52”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein the reflective surfaces form side walls of a duct (as shown in Fig. 7, the concave reflecting facets are placed on each end of the cell (with reflective surface 12 and 14) and both ends together form side walls of an optical path channel).
Regarding Claim 5:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein the flow is at right angles to the sides (Fig. 7 and para. [0079]: the to-be-treated air enters into the treatment device 80 via tube 78, the flow path is perpendicular to the upper and bottom sides of the treatment device).
PNG
media_image2.png
595
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein the radiation is directed into a duct through which a fluid passes (annotated Fig.6 above: both laser beam (from aperture 24 to 28) and the fluid (from port 32 at one side to port 32 at the other side) pass the channel formed by reflective surface 12 and 14).
Regarding Claim 7:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 6. Dürrstein further teaches wherein the radiation is directed generally longitudinally of the duct (Fig. 1 shows the radiation 22 emits from the source 62 is directed generally longitudinally of the channel enclosed in pressure vessel 12).
Regarding Claim 8:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 6. Weidmann further teaches wherein the radiation is directed at an angle to a longitudinal direction of the duct with the radiation passing through a window in side walls of the duct (annotated Fig.6 above and para. [0080]: the laser beam is directed at an angle to a longitudinally direction of the channel (central axis perpendicular to each end wall), through a window 28 on each end wall).
Regarding Claim 9:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein a majority of radiation paths include at least ten and preferably more than one hundred reflections from surfaces bounding the reaction chamber (para. [0058]: “the number of facets 16 on each or on both reflectors in combination… may be in the range from about 3 or from about 6, to about 100 or to about 400…Increasing the number of facets used for reflection leads to an increased path length of the laser beam through the sample,” and thus forming more than 100 reflections from these reflective facets).
Regarding Claim 10:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein the reflective surfaces define at least one center optical axis extending therebetween along which the reflections pass and wherein a source of the radiation is located at a position offset from the center axis between the reflective surfaces so that a locus of the reflections moves toward the center axis (as shown in annotated Fig. 6 above, a central optical axis, passing through the center of each end wall/reflective surfaces 12 and14, extending along the optical path, and a laser emitted through aperture 24, which is offset from the center axis).
Regarding Claim 11:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein a source of the radiation is located at one side of said at least one reflective surface of a reflective pair (Fig. 6 shows the laser beam is emitted from one side of the reflective facet pairs).
Regarding Claim 12:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein the reflective surface is a concave mirror and a source of the radiation source is located at a position on said at least one concave mirror (Fig. 1 and para. [0072]: “the reflector 62 being designed as a concave mirror, can preferably be dimensioned such that the aperture of the reflector 62 is approximately 0.5 to approximately 2 times the radius of the reflector 62”. Since as shown in Fig. 1, the radiation source 60 is located inside the concave mirror 62, thus the dimension of the source 60 is less than the focal length of the mirror).
As such, it would have been obvious for an ordinarily skilled person in the art, in view of Dürrstein’s teaching, to configure the source of the radiation to has a dimension which is less than 0.03 times the focal length of the mirror. The specification identifies no criticality associated with the claimed ratio; therefore, selecting the relative source dimension would have been a matter of routine optimization to approximate a point source, reduce optical aberration, and improve collimation and direction of the reflected radiation.
Regarding Claim 13:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein a source of the radiation source is located at a focal point of the concave mirror (para. [0064]: “The reflector 62 of the radiating device 40 is preferably designed as a parabolic mirror with at least one radiation source 60 arranged in the focal point, which radiates into the parabolic mirror”).
Regarding Claim 17:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein at least part of a chamber wall reflects electromagnetic radiation diffusely (Fig. 2 and para. [0050]: the inner surface of the pressure vessel 12 may be equipped with a reflection surface 52 to reflect the radiations).
Regarding Claim 18:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein the reactive material is entrained in a fluid flow wherein the fluid is a liquid or a gas (para. [0007]: the sample material is reactive to leaser radiation, and “may typically be a gas, liquid, or other fluid”).
Regarding Claim 19:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation is UVC radiation and the reactive material is a microorganism selected from the list of bacteria, virus, protozoan, helminth, yeast, mold or fungus and said UVC radiation inactivates said microorganism (para. [0074]: “The radiation sources 60 …emit preferably UV radiation… Microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, yeasts and fungi can be rendered harmless by UV radiation in a short time”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Dürrstein further teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation is at least partially collimated to travel primarily back and forth between the reflective surfaces (para. [0040]: “the radiation is reflected at least substantially in the longitudinal direction between opposing reflection surfaces 34, 35, preferably back and forth several times”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidmann in view of Dürrstein, further in view of US 2002/0075576 A1[hereinafter Wu]
Regarding Claim 14:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the offset between each beam and a next beam after a reflection is less than a width of the beam so that the beams form a complete curtain.
Wu teaches using pairs of reflecting surfaces to reduce the spacing between adjacent optical beams and expressly states that it is desirable to minimize the spacing between the beams (paras. [0003, 0018]). As such, it would have been obvious for an ordinarily skilled person in the art, in view of Wu’s teaching, to configure the offset between each beam and the next beam after reflection as less than the width of the beams. The specification identifies no criticality in making the spacing less than the beam width, selecting the spacing would have been routine optimization to increase beam overlap, reduce unirradiated gaps, and form a more complete radiation curtain/overlapping.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to arrange the reflective concave mirrors of the modified Weidmann so as to minimize the lateral offset between successive reflected beam paths, as taught by Wu, because such overlapping beams would form a continuous or complete radiation curtain, thereby avoiding untreated gaps and providing more uniform exposure of the reactive material to the electromagnetic radiation.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidmann in view of Dürrstein, further in view of US 2008/0134899 A1 [hereinafter Subbarao].
Regarding Claim 15:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein teaches the method of claim 1. Weidmann further teaches wherein there is provided an inlet port for admitting reactive materials and an outlet port for discharging product materials (Figs. 6 -7 and para. [0083]: port 32 may be formed on each end wall (with reflective surface 12 and 14), and “may be connected to suitable further apparatus such as ducts, pumps and valves for controlling and/or directing the flow of a sample into and through the space between the reflectors 12, 14”). However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein there is provided absorbing surfaces formed and shaped to stop transmission of electromagnetic radiation from the interior of the chamber to an exterior location.
Subbarao teaches wherein there is provided absorbing surfaces formed and shaped to stop transmission of electromagnetic radiation from the interior of the chamber to an exterior location (Figs. 3-4 and paras. [0014, 0019]: “A first light trap 130 is mounted to housing 106 at first end 110 to cover air inlet 108 and a second light trap 131 is mounted to housing 106 at second end 114 to cover air outlet 112 for facilitating preventing or limiting the ultraviolet light from exiting air inlet 108 and/or air outlet 112.” “Light trap 130 includes a disc-shaped body 152 … are coated with a light absorbing material, such as an ultraviolet light absorbing material or a black paint, or a light reflective material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide the inlet and outlet of Weidmann with Subbarao’s UV-absorbing light straps to prevent harmful radiation from escaping the chamber while allowing the treated fluid to pass through the inlet and outlet.
Regarding Claim 16:
Weidmann in view of Dürrstein and Subbarao teaches the method of claim 15. Weidmann further teaches wherein the inlet and outlet ports are not on an axis of symmetry of the reaction chamber (as shown in Fig. 6, port 32 on each end wall are not on the axis of symmetry of the sample cell).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights