DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 .
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 1-5 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 claim states “a light source emitting ultraviolet rays to a fluid flowing through…” This limitation is directed to the method of operation while the claim is directed to a “device”. Process limitation within a device claim render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the process must be occurring or not for direct infringement to occur (see MPEP 2173.05(P)). It is recommended that the applicant use “capable of”, “configured to”, or similar language to clarify the intent of the claim.
The claim states “wherein an end part is brough into contact with a surface…” It is not clear what “an end part” is referring to”.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5:
The claims state “in a case of viewing in a direction along a central axis…” This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what structure it is limiting the claims to.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 115583690 A, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen teaches the fluid sterilization device, comprising: a cylindrical part (water supply cylinder 1) (see pg. 4, last paragraph, figs. 1-3); a light source (ultraviolet lamp tubes 34) (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph), emitting ultraviolet rays to a fluid flowing through an inside of the cylindrical part via a window (lens 35) (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph, fig. 3); a water turbine (impeller) (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph), provided inside the cylindrical part; and a removal part (cleaning assembly 7), provided at the water turbine, wherein an end part (scraping strip 72) is brought into contact with a surface of the window on a side opposite to a side of the light source (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2:
Chen teaches the fluid sterilization device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a biasing part (roller frame 71), provided between the water turbine and the removal part and pressing the removal part against the surface of the window by using elastic force (see pg. 5, 1st paragraph, fig. 1).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115583690 A, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torii (JP 2017104830 A, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3:
Chen teaches the fluid sterilization device as claimed in claim 1.
Chen does not teach wherein the removal part is a brush, and bristles of the brush contact the surface of the window.
Torii teaches a fluid sterilization device wherein a removal part is a brush (brush 34) (see pg. 2, 5th paragraph) and the bristles of the brush contact the surface of a window (window portion 28) (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph).
Chen and Torii are analogous inventions in the art of fluid sterilization devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the removal part (scraping strip) of Chen with a brush, as disclosed by Torii, because it is the simple substitution of one known removal part with another known removal part, obviously resulting in the removal of debris from the window, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the fluid sterilization device of claims 1 or 2 comprising a “base…having a plurality of holes penetrating through in a thickness direction, wherein…blades of the water turbine pass through positions overlapped with the hole.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights