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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application EP Application No. 21202531.6, filed October 13, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of this application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3, 4, 7-13, 15, 16 and their dependent claims 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 3 recites the limitation “two holders”. It is not clear if this limitation includes the earlier recited limitation “the at least one holder”, or if this limitation adds an additional “two holders” to the original “the at least one holder”. Examiner interprets it to be included in the original limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a UV radiator module”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least one UV radiator module” as in Claim 1, or if it is a different limitation than the original limitation. Examiner interprets it to be included in the original limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the longitudinal extension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “at least one of the holders”, “the other of the holders”, and “the holders”. It is not clear if these limitations refer to the originally recited limitation “at least one holder” in Claim 1, or if these limitations are different.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “two holders”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “two holders” as in Claim 3, or not. Examiner interprets them to be the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “their base plates”. It is not clear to which limitation these “base plates” belong.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the legs”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “the two legs” as in Claim 1 or not, because it is not clear to which specific legs are being referred.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the two sidewalls”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “parallel sidewalls” earlier in the claim because it is not specified how many sidewalls there were originally.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “at least one UV radiator module”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least one UV radiator module” as in Claim 1, or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the guide rails”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the horizontal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least two UV radiator modules”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least one UV radiator module” as in Claim 10, or if this is a newly added group of “UV radiator modules”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “neighboring UV radiator modules”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least two UV radiator modules” as in Claim 11, or if this is a newly added group of “UV radiator modules”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the at least one spacer” on line 2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a spacer” as in Claim 11, or not.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one spacer’. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a spacer” in Claim 11, or not.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “at least one spacer”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a spacer” in Claim 11, or not.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the free edges” and “their profile”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4 & 7, Kurtz discloses a mount for movably mounting at least one UV radiator module in an open channel water or wastewater treatment system, (See paragraphs [0069] & [0070]), the mount comprising - at least one holder with a base plate, (Cross Support Member 35 and surface of Member 35 on which Sleeves 60 are placed, See Figure 10, See paragraph [0058]), and at least one fastening area that extends perpendicular to the base plate, (Side Walls 126 in alignment with Openings 120/121 of Members 114/116, See Figure 10, See paragraph [0058]), and - a bracket with a center section and two parallel and straight side edges, which are disposed at a distance from each other, (Channel Support Members 114/116, See Figure 10), and with two legs that are respectively connected to the center section at side edges and that extend from the center section parallel to one another and perpendicular to the center section, (Side Walls 114a/116a of Support Members 114/116, See Figure 10), wherein - fastening means are provided on the at least one fastening area and at the two legs which are arranged to fasten the bracket to the at least one holder in a selectable position so that the distance between the base plate and the center section is adjustable, (Bolts 124 securing Cross Member 35 and Channel Support Members 114/116, See Figure 10).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The mount according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the bracket is essentially U-shaped with the center section being flat, (Support Members 114/116 has flat top/central portions and right angle Side Walls 114a/1146a that create a U shaped profile, See Figure 10).
Claim 4: The mount according to claim 1, wherein the bracket carries a guide rail for guiding a UV radiator module in a direction parallel to the longitudinal extension of the legs, (Housings 12/20 with UV lamps in which UV lamps extend longitudinally parallel to Side Walls 114a/116a, See Figure 10).
Claim 7: The mount according to claim 1, wherein the fastening means comprise elongated holes in at least one of the holders and the bracket to overlap with corresponding holes in the other of the holders and the bracket allowing relative movement of the bracket to the holders before fixing these parts to one another, (Openings 120/121 of Channel Support Members 114/116 and Bolts 124, See Figure 10).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Tipton, (US 5,208,461).
Regarding Claims 3 & 8, the embodiment recited in Kurtz (embodiment 1) discloses the mount according to claim 1, wherein two holders are provided, each being L-shaped in cross section.
Another embodiment of Kurtz (embodiment 2) discloses wherein two holders are provided, (Either Figure 15 or 16 has Multiple Cross Support Member 34, See paragraph [0056], [0067], Kurtz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mount of Embodiment 1 of Kurtz by incorporating wherein two holders are provided as in Embodiment 2 of Kurtz in order to form “a greater number of fluid disinfection modules” to “extend across exceptionally large” areas for treatment, (See paragraph [0067], Kurtz).
Modified Kurtz does not disclose each being L-shaped in cross section.
Tipton discloses each being L-shaped in cross section, (Support Plate 40/Lip 42 securing/holding Rack 32 to Lid 28, See Figures 1 & 2, See column 3, lines 37-61, Tipton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mount of modified Kurtz by incorporating each being L-shaped in cross section as in Tipton in order to “be removably suspended from [a] lid…so that it rests on bottom surface…when [the] lid is closed, but is lifted out of chamber…when [the] lid is raised”, (See column 3, lines 49-54, Tipton), to “facilitate cleaning the lamps”, (See column 2, lines 22-23, Tipton).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 8: The mount according to claim 3, wherein two holders are provided and are mounted with their base plates facing away from each other, and that wherein the bracket is mounted embracing the legs of the two holders, (Cross Support Members 34 have sides that face toward and away from each other, and Support Members 114/116 will attach to ends of Members 34, See Figures 10 & one of Figures 15, 16, See paragraph [0058] & [0066] or [0067], Kurtz).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Ifill et al., (“Ifill”, US 5,019,256).
Regarding Claim 9, Kurtz discloses in the recited first embodiment, a water treatment installation, wherein there is a mount according to claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1 above).
The first embodiment of Kurtz does not disclose an open water channel having parallel sidewalls and a bottom wall, wherein two mounts are mounted in opposite positions and facing each other to the two sidewalls.
Another embodiment of Kurtz (Embodiment 2) discloses two mounts mounted in opposite positions and facing each other, (Either Figure 15 or 16 has Multiple modules 200 (202/203/204), See paragraph [0056], [0067], [0068] Kurtz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water treatment installation of the first embodiment of Kurtz by incorporating two mounts mounted in opposite positions and facing each other as in Embodiment 2 of Kurtz in order to form “a greater number of fluid disinfection modules” to “extend across exceptionally large” areas for treatment, (See paragraph [0067], Kurtz).
Modified Kurtz does not disclose an open water channel having parallel sidewalls and a bottom wall in which the mounts face each other to the two side walls.
Ifill discloses an open water channel having parallel sidewalls and a bottom wall in which the mounts face each other to the two side walls, (Figure 2, See column 4, lines 36-60, Ifill).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water treatment installation of modified Kurtz by incorporating an open water channel having parallel sidewalls and a bottom wall in which the mounts face each other to the two side walls as in Ifill because “the lamp rack assembly is so placed that the water stream entering the channel impinges on the upstream or cap end of the assembly”, (See column 6, lines 65-67, Ifill), in order to “subject all of the water to the sterilizing effects of ultraviolet radiation”, (See column 1, lines 49-50, Ifill).
Claim(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Wedekamp, (US 2003/0010927).
Regarding Claims 5 & 6, Kurtz discloses the mount according to claim 1, wherein the bracket and the at least one holder in assembled state, together with an adjacent channel wall define an internal volume which is filled with solid material.
Kurtz does not disclose them together with an adjacent channel wall define an internal volume which is filled with solid material.
Wedekamp discloses the mount together with an adjacent channel wall define an internal volume which is filled with solid material, (See paragraph [0027], [0008] & [0009], Wedekamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mount of Kurtz by incorporating the mount together with an adjacent channel wall define an internal volume which is filled with solid material as in Wedekamp so that “elaborate components which must generally be made as stainless steel parts are no longer necessary” and “the structures necessary for the final installation of the radiation device are limited to relatively small sub-assemblies which reduces both the cost of the radiation device itself as well as the transport and assembly expense necessary”, (See paragraph [0009], Wedekamp).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 6: The mount according to claim 5, wherein the solid material is mortar or another hydraulically hardening, essentially inorganic material, (See paragraph [0027], [0008] & [0009], Wedekamp; concrete).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Ifill et al., (“Ifill”, US 5,019,256), in further view of Farren et al., (“Farren”, US 2020/0230273).
Regarding Claims 10-12, modified Kurtz discloses the water treatment installation wherein at least one UV radiator module is held between the mounts and is movable along the guide rails in a direction which is oriented between a certain degree, (multiple UV sleeves 13/lights 17 held between cumulatively all the mounts, See Figures 2, 5 & 10, See column 3, lines 64-66, column 4, lines 5-10, Ifill).
Modified Kurtz does not disclose the UV radiator module being movable upwards and downwards between 60o and 90o relative to the horizontal.
Farren discloses the UV radiator module being movable upwards and downwards between 60o and 90o relative to the horizontal, (See Figures 21-25, See paragraph [0503], Farren).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water treatment installation of modified Kurtz by incorporating the UV radiator module being movable upwards and downwards between 60o and 90o relative to the horizontal as in Farren so that “the UV light source can be positioned at a desired position within a container, a room, a space or desired environment”, (See paragraph [0503], Farren).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: The water treatment installation according to claim 10 wherein at least two UV radiator modules are held between the mounts, (multiple UV sleeves 13/lights 17 held between cumulatively all the mounts, See Figure 2 & 5, See column 3, lines 64-66, column 4, lines 5-10, Ifill), and wherein a spacer is provided between each pair of neighboring UV radiator modules, (Spacers 22 between each of two UV sleeves 13, See Figures 2 & 5, See column 5, lines 22-27, Ifill).
Claim 12: The water treatment installation according to claim 11 wherein the at least one spacer carries guide rails that are oriented parallel to the guide rails of the mounts, (Spacers 22 between each of two UV sleeves 13, and Rods 12 extending through/carried by Spacers 22, See Figures 2 & 5, See column 5, lines 22-27, Ifill).
Claim(s) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Ifill et al., (“Ifill”, US 5,019,256), in further view of Farren et al., (“Farren”, US 2020/0230273), in further view of Wedekamp, (US 2003/0010927).
Regarding Claims 13 & 14, modified Kurtz discloses the water treatment installation according to claim 11, does not disclose wherein the at least spacer is hollow and filled with solid material.
Wedekamp discloses wherein the at least spacer is hollow and filled with solid material, (See paragraph [0027], [0008] & [0009], Wedekamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mount of modified Kurtz by incorporating wherein the at least spacer is hollow and filled with solid material as in Wedekamp so that “elaborate components which must generally be made as stainless steel parts are no longer necessary” and “the structures necessary for the final installation of the radiation device are limited to relatively small sub-assemblies which reduces both the cost of the radiation device itself as well as the transport and assembly expense necessary”, (See paragraph [0009], Wedekamp).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 14: The mount according to claim 13, wherein the solid material is mortar or another hydraulically hardening, essentially inorganic material, (See paragraph [0027], [0008] & [0009], Wedekamp; concrete).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al., (“Kurtz”, US 2005/0069463), in view of Ifill et al., (“Ifill”, US 5,019,256), in further view of Farren et al., (“Farren”, US 2020/0230273), in further view of Park et al, KR20150104376A, (“Park”, “Machine Translation of KR20150104376A”, published 2015, 57 total pages).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kurtz discloses the water treatment installation according to claim 11, but does not disclose wherein at least one spacer is made of two C-profiles which are mounted to each other along the free edges of their profile so as to define an internal void.
Park discloses wherein at least one spacer is made of two C-profiles which are mounted to each other along the free edges of their profile so as to define an internal void, (See paragraph [0023], [0044], Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water treatment installation of modified Kurtz by incorporating wherein at least one spacer is made of two C-profiles which are mounted to each other along the free edges of their profile so as to define an internal void as in Park in order to “divide [it] into two prefabricated semicircular bodies…thereby making [its] installation and removal….easier and more convenient”, (See paragraph [0023], Park).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights