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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sidewall having a concave and convex structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (TW M601144, the passages cited below refer to the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action) in view of Li et al. (TW 201111034, the passages cited below refer to the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action) taken together with Leupold et al. (WO 2015/135798, the passages cited below refer to the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action).
Per claim 1, Wu et al. disclose a device (10) for recycling sulfuric acid (Abstract, … this can effectively improve the purity of sulfuric acid, achieve recycling
and reuse, and improve environmental protection problems.), comprising:
a container (11) having an inner space (Figs. 2,3);
an inlet (21) located at a first side (e.g., top side; Figs. 1-3) of the container for introducing a liquid containing sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide (page 4, In the equipment for removing hydrogen peroxide from sulfuric acid, the waste sulfuric acid introduction pipe 21 is connected to a flow meter 22, a first spherical valve 23, a first pump 24, and a waste sulfuric acid storage tank 25 to the outside.) through a pump (24);
an outlet (41) located at a second side (e.g., bottom side; Figs. 1-3) of the container for exhausting a treated liquid from the container (page 4, The upper part of the processing space 11 is connected to the inside of the aforementioned closed processing space 11; the number of purified sulfuric acid output pipe 41, one end of which penetrates from the bottom of the aforementioned closed processing space 11 to the inside of the aforementioned closed processing space 11; and a filter device 50, which may be installed in the aforementioned purification On the sulfuric acid output pipe 41, the aforementioned filtering device 50 has to filter out the metal oxides formed by the oxidized metal ions in the waste sulfuric acid, and the oxides can be filtered out due to low solubility.), wherein the first side is opposite to the second side (Figs. 1-3);
a UV lamp (141) located in the inner space of the container (Figs. 1-3);
and
a lid covering a top side of the container (Fig. 3) and having an air hole (Fig. 3, receiving conduit 31), wherein the air hole is connected to an exhaust device (30, 31; page 4, an air extraction device 30 is provided with an air extraction pipe 31 which is sealed by the aforementioned).
Regarding the UV lamp being for making contact with the liquid, it is submitted that it limitation appears to be one of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the device on Wu et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Wu et al. do not disclose an IR lamp located in the inner space of the container for making contact with the liquid; a bracket located in the inner space of the container for joining the IR lamp and the UV lamp and wherein IR radiation emitted from the IR lamp and UV radiation emitted from the UV lamp decompose the hydrogen peroxide in the liquid to water and oxygen, the IR radiation heats the liquid to 90°C to 130°C, and the oxygen is exhausted from the air hole.
Li et al. disclose an IR lamp (81-84; page 2, In addition, the light sources of the lamps 81, 82, 83, 84 preferably use ultraviolet (UV) or infrared (IR) 'chemical liquids can be catalyzed by absorbing ultraviolet light or by infrared light heating the goal of.) located in an inner space of a container (1) for causing reactions in a liquid (Abstract,
The invention discloses a catalyzing device of chemical liquid, comprising a casing, a front cover, a plurality of separation plates, and a plurality of lamp tubes. The casing is barrel shaped and has an inner receiving chamber. The front cover has a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet, making the chemical liquids pass through the catalyzing device of chemical liquid. The plurality of separation plates separate the inner receiving chamber into a plurality of chambers. The plurality of lamp tubes are disposed in the plurality of chambers in one to one corresponding relationship for catalyzing the chemical liquid.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the device of Wu et al. such that it comprises an IR lamp located in an inner space of a container for causing reactions in a liquid in order to, for example, cause a desirable reaction in the liquid (Fig. 1).
Regarding the IR lamp being for making contact with the liquid, it is submitted that the limitation appears to be one of intended use that fails to impose additional structure on the device on Wu et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Leupold et al. disclose a device (Fig. 1D) comprising a bracket (102h; page 12, End portions are held by means of a plurality of brackets 102 h or be attached to the process chamber cover 102. For example, each flashlamp 106 of the plurality of flashlamps 106 may be held at their axial end portions by means of two brackets 102h, respectively.) located in the inner space of a container (100) for joining multiple IR or UV lamps (106; page 8, Power per length) UV light in the wavelength range of about 200 nm to about 400 nm are generated, which can be used for example for the UV treatment of substrates or carriers. Further, when flashing by means of the flashlamps (depending on the power or power per length) visible light and / or infrared light can be generated.) in order to, for example, support and stabilize the lamps during treatment operations (page 11, Direction 103) of two brackets 102h, e.g. of two pedestal elements 102h, which form a pedestal structure 102h for the at least one flashlamp 106. Thus, the at least one flashlamp 106 may be stabilized, for example, during ignition.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the device of Wu e al. and Li et al. such that it comprises a bracket located in the inner space of a container (100) for joining multiple IR or UV lamps in order to, for example, support and stabilize the lamps while the lamps during treatment operations.
Regarding wherein IR radiation emitted from the IR lamp and UV radiation emitted from the UV lamp decompose the hydrogen peroxide in the liquid to water and oxygen, the IR radiation heats the liquid to 90°C to 130°C, and the oxygen is exhausted from the air hole, it is submitted that the limitation appears to be one of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose additional structure on the device on Wu et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Per claim 2, Wu et al. disclose that oxygen is removed via an exhaust device (Abstract, The oxygen generated by the decomposition reaction of hydrogen peroxide must be immediately extracted by the exhaust device to avoid contact with water after being irradiated by ultraviolet light to form hydrogen peroxide again.). Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose the device further comprising a three-way valve connected to the outlet for exhausting the oxygen.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises a three-way valve connected to the outlet for exhausting the oxygen in order to, for example, control the timing, duration and routing of the oxygen for downstream processing, collection and/or disposal. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected results obtained by providing a 3-way valve connected to the outlet. It has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 3, regarding wherein the IR radiation has a wavelength of 1500 nm to 6500 nm, it is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the IR lamp of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to utilize lamps such that the IR radiation has a wavelength of 1500 nm to 6500 nm, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result.
Per claim 4, regarding wherein the UV radiation has a wavelength of 230 nm to 275 nm, it is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the UV lamp of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, Wu et al. disclose that the UV irradiation wavelength should be below 400 nm (page 4, In the equipment for removing hydrogen peroxide in sulfuric acid, the ultraviolet lamp 141 can be a UV ultraviolet lamp with a wavelength of 400nm or less, and the ultraviolet lamp 141 can be provided with several pieces, which are configured according to the concentration of hydrogen peroxide to match the treatment energy,). Wu does not explicitly disclose that the UV irradiation has a wavelength of 230 nm to 275 nm.
Li et al. disclose a wavelength range that overlaps a wavelength of 230 nm to 275 nm (page 8, Power per length) UV light in the wavelength range of about 200 nm to about 400 nm are generated, which can be used for example for the UV treatment of substrates or carriers.) in order to, for example, facilitate treatment operations and it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a range lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art (See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the device of Wu et al, as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises a wavelength of 230 nm to 275 nm in order to, for example, facilitate treatment operations. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing of any new and unexpected result obtained by providing UV radiation in the recited range.
Per claim 5, Wu et al, as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the IR radiation and the UV radiation has an energy density of 0.1 W/cm² to 16 W/cm².
Regarding wherein each of the IR radiation and the UV radiation has an energy density of 0.1 W/cm² to 16 W/cm², it is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the IR and UV lamps of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, it is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises wherein each of the IR radiation and the UV radiation has an energy density of 0.1 W/cm² to 16 W/cm², depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected results obtained by providing wherein each of the IR radiation and the UV radiation has an energy density of 0.1 W/cm² to 16 W/cm². It has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 6, Wu et al, as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not explicitly disclose wherein the IR radiation and the UV radiation have an energy density ratio of 4:1 to 20:1.
Regarding wherein the IR radiation and the UV radiation have an energy density ratio of 4:1 to 20:1, it is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the IR and UV lamps of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997).
Alternatively, it is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises wherein the IR radiation and the UV radiation have an energy density ratio of 4:1 to 20:1, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected results obtained by providing wherein the IR radiation and the UV radiation have an energy density ratio of 4:1 to 20:1. It has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 7, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose the device further comprising other IR lamps and other UV lamps, wherein a total cross-sectional area of the IR lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100, and a total cross-sectional area of the UV lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises wherein a total cross-sectional area of the IR lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100, and a total cross-sectional area of the UV lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected results obtained by providing wherein a total cross-sectional area of the IR lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100, and a total cross-sectional area of the UV lamps and a cross-sectional area of the container have a ratio of 1:100 to 5:100. It has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 8, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose the device further comprising wherein the IR lamps are arranged as a first circle in a cross-section of the container, the UV lamps are arranged as a second circle in the cross-section of the container, the first circle and the second circle are concentric, and a diameter of the first circle is larger than a diameter of the second circle.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises wherein the IR lamps are arranged as a first circle in a cross-section of the container, the UV lamps are arranged as a second circle in the cross-section of the container, the first circle and the second circle are concentric, and a diameter of the first circle is larger than a diameter of the second circle, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected results obtained by providing wherein the IR lamps are arranged as a first circle in a cross-section of the container, the UV lamps are arranged as a second circle in the cross-section of the container, the first circle and the second circle are concentric, and a diameter of the first circle is larger than a diameter of the second circle. It has been held that routine matters of design choice do not involve an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.
Per claim 9, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose wherein the liquid introduced from the inlet has a flow rate of 0.5 m/hour to 3 m/hour.
It is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Moreover, the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., appears to be capable of handling liquid introduced from the inlet at a flow rate of 0.5 m/hour to 3 m/hour.
Per claim 10, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose wherein the liquid has a sulfuric acid concentration of 50 wt% to 70 wt%.
It is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Moreover, the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., appears to be capable of handling liquid having a sulfuric acid concentration of 50 wt% to 70 wt%.
Per claim 11, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose wherein the liquid has a hydrogen peroxide concentration of 10000 mg/L to 60000 mg/L, and the treated liquid has a hydrogen peroxide concentration of less than or equal to 50 mg/L.
It is submitted that the recitation appears to be recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails impose additional structure on the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Moreover, the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., appears to be capable of handling liquid wherein the liquid has a hydrogen peroxide concentration of 10000 mg/L to 60000 mg/L, and the treated liquid has a hydrogen peroxide concentration of less than or equal to 50 mg/L.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (‘144) in view of Li et al. (‘034) taken together with Leupold et al. (‘798) as applied above, and further in view of De Best (US 2024/0316525).
Per claim 12, Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., do not disclose wherein a sidewall of the container has a concave and convex structure.
De Best discloses wherein a sidewall (210) of a container has a concave and convex structure ([0077] The intensity of light source radiation may diminish rapidly with increased distance into the reactor chamber, especially into the reactor fluid. Hence, if the reactor fluid exhibits laminar flow, the reactor fluid may be non-uniformly exposed to the light source radiation. Hence, in embodiments, the reactor walls, especially the at least one of the one or more reactor walls, may have a corrugated shape, especially a corrugated shape at least partly defined by corrugations.; [0078] The corrugated shapes may result in turbulence for a fluid flowing in the reactor, especially in the reactor chamber. The turbulence may disrupt the laminar flow, and may thereby result in a more uniform exposure of the reactor fluid to the light source radiation.; [0079] In embodiments, the corrugations may comprise the wall cavities. In further embodiments, the corrugations may define the wall cavities.; [0146] In the depicted embodiment, the reactor walls 210 have corrugated shapes at least partly defined by corrugations 225. In particular, the corrugations 225 may comprise the wall cavities 220.) in order to, for example, result in a more uniform exposure of liquid to light source radiation.
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the device of Wu et al., as modified by Li et al. and Leupold et al., such that it comprises wherein a sidewall of the container has a concave and convex structure in order to, for example, result in a more uniform exposure of liquid to light source radiation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights