DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-4, drawn to a method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor , classified in C02F 2209/40.
II. Claims 5-23, drawn to a Method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor, classified in C02F2209/02.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Claims 5,16,19 requires detecting with temperature sensor.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I and II have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Inventions I and II have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Inventions I and II require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with PATRICK DE LA PENA on 08/13/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of II, claims 5-23. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-4 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.1, Bascin)
Regarding Claim 5, Bascin is directed generally to water quality treatment, and, more particularly, to ultraviolet light treatment of an aqueous fluid [0002].
Bascin discloses a method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor (vessel) and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, the method comprising: detecting, with at least one temperature sensor, a temperature in the UV light source assembly; and controlling, with at least one processor, an intensity of the UV light based on the detected temperature from the at least one temperature sensor (Fg.1 ; [0005]- [0008] ; [0033]; [0038] ; Abstract,( A system, method, and assembly for controlling a power supply for at least one ultraviolet lamp where at least one ultraviolet lamp uses input received from at least one sensor of at least one ultraviolet lamp to measure a characteristic of the at least one ultraviolet lamp and, if based on that at least one sensor, the at least one ultraviolet lamp determines that at least one characteristic of a power supply operatively coupled to the at least one ultraviolet lamp should be changed, generates a command for that power supply to modify that at least one characteristic either by modulating its output or adjusting an output level); [0018], ( UV wavelength may be in the range of 100 to 400 nanometers, which can be provided by a variety of UV light sources, for example, UV light emitting diodes (LEDs), arc lamps, mercury vapor lamps, or the like, These UV light sources may be arranged in or around vessels of water to be treated with UV light. Commercial systems may have multiple vessels or tubes through which water passes for UV treatment); [0024], (he systems and methods described herein provide a technique for a lamp to modulate a power supply based upon UV lamp characteristics and operating requirements, UV light output values, current values, voltage values, temperature values and the like, and use this information to provide commands to modulate the power supply until the UV lamp determines that it is providing the required UV light output or electrical power); , [0035], ( At 202 the system may determine if the characteristic identifies that a characteristic of the power supply connected to the lamp should be modified. This determination may be made by comparing the characteristic to a threshold value. For example, a processor may modulate power output when an input from a sensor reaches a temperature threshold, an hour limit, or the like. As an example, if the characteristic is a temperature characteristic, the system may compare that temperature value to an expected temperature value, which may have an associated temperature range. If the temperature value is outside the range, either high or low, the system may then determine that a characteristic of the power supply should be modified. If, on the other hand, the temperature value is within the range, the system may determine that a characteristic of the power supply does not need to be modified); [0038], (In an embodiment, the command may be a command that is used to control a characteristic of a power supply. For example, the command may be an output from the lamp that is then processed by the processor to control a characteristic of a power supply that is supplying power to the lamp. The command may be responsive to the input from at least one sensor associated with the lamp. For example, a lamp may be associated with a sensor that measures temperature. If the sensor detects a temperature of the lamp that is above a predetermined threshold, the lamp may send a command to the processor, which can then send the signal or generate a new signal that is then sent to the power supply to decrease power to the lamp, thereby reducing the temperature of the lamp)).
Regarding Claim 6, Bascin discloses the method further comprising determining, with the at least one processor, a temperature parameter that is at least one of change in the detected temperature, a rate of change in the detected temperature, and an absolute temperature value ([0024]; [0033]; [0038]; [0035], ( For example, a processor may modulate power output when an input from a sensor reaches a temperature threshold, an hour limit, or the like. As an example, if the characteristic is a temperature characteristic, the system may compare that temperature value to an expected temperature value, which may have an associated temperature range. If the temperature value is outside the range, either high or low, the system may then determine that a characteristic of the power supply should be modified. If, on the other hand, the temperature value is within the range, the system may determine that a characteristic of the power supply does not need to be modified.)
Regarding Claim 7, Bascin discloses the method wherein the at least one processor controls the intensity of the UV light based on the determined temperature parameter ([0024]; [0033] ]; [0035]; [0038], (In an embodiment, the command may be a command that is used to control a characteristic of a power supply. For example, the command may be an output from the lamp that is then processed by the processor to control a characteristic of a power supply that is supplying power to the lamp. The command may be responsive to the input from at least one sensor associated with the lamp. For example, a lamp may be associated with a sensor that measures temperature. If the sensor detects a temperature of the lamp that is above a predetermined threshold, the lamp may send a command to the processor, which can then send the signal or generate a new signal that is then sent to the power supply to decrease power to the lamp, thereby reducing the temperature of the lamp)).
Regarding Claim 8, Bascin discloses the method wherein the at least one processor controls the intensity of the UV light by controlling electrical power supplied to the UV light source assembly (Fg.1.; [0005]- [0008] , [0018] , [0025], [0035], [0038]); Abstract, ( A system, method, and assembly for controlling a power supply for at least one ultraviolet lamp where at least one ultraviolet lamp uses input received from at least one sensor of at least one ultraviolet lamp to measure a characteristic of the at least one ultraviolet lamp and, if based on that at least one sensor, the at least one ultraviolet lamp determines that at least one characteristic of a power supply operatively coupled to the at least one ultraviolet lamp should be changed, generates a command for that power supply to modify that at least one characteristic either by modulating its output or adjusting an output level); [0024], (he systems and methods described herein provide a technique for a lamp to modulate a power supply based upon UV lamp characteristics and operating requirements, UV light output values, current values, voltage values, temperature values and the like, and use this information to provide commands to modulate the power supply until the UV lamp determines that it is providing the required UV light output or electrical power)).
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 9- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, as applied to the claim above, in view of Alexander et al. (US-20200197983-A1) herein known as Alexander.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to the method further comprising: detecting, with a flow sensor, a flow rate of the fluid through the reactor; and determining, by the at least one processor, that the flow sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter is outside of a predetermined range; and (ii) the flow rate detected by the flow sensor is below a threshold flow rate.
Alexander is directed to pressure washer systems, and more particularly to pressure washer systems including automated starting functionality [0002].
Alexander discloses detecting, with a flow sensor, a flow rate of the fluid through the reactor; and determining, by the at least one processor, that the flow sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter is outside of a predetermined range; and (ii) the flow rate detected by the flow sensor is below a threshold flow rate ([0103], (the processor may monitor one or more of the system characteristics to determine if the control module may transition 108 to another operating state, the control module may evaluate the flow sensor for the possibility of damage, defect, or other undesirable condition, if the flow sensor is determined to improperly functioning, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state, Further, both the control module temperature and the battery temperature may be monitored to determine if both are within range. If either temperature is out of range, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118); ([0110], (For example, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118 in response to detecting a battery voltage below a predetermined threshold, detecting that the flow sensor is defective, detecting that the control button is depressed and/or defected at the time of battery insertion, detecting control module temperature above a predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Alexander, in order to if the flow sensor is determined to improperly functioning, the control module may transition to the fault state (See Alexander, [0103]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Bascin discloses if the temperature parameter is outside of the predetermined range; and if the temperature parameter is outside of the predetermined range and if power to the UV light source assembly is off or in a low power mode, then increasing the power to the UV light source assembly to expose the fluid to the UV light. (Fg.1. ;Abstract, [0005]- [0008] , [0018], [0024], [0033], [0035], [0038]).
Regarding Claim 11, Alexander discloses sending a notification signal, by the at least one processor, if the at least one processor determines that the flow sensor is defective. (Fig.13; [0010], (The fault state may define a state during which the control module has detected a failure of one or more tested operating conditions. The event state may define a state during which the control module has identified one or more actionable operating conditions).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view Trescott (US-9146172-B2) herein known as Trescott.
Regarding Claim 12, Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to the method further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, a flow rate of the fluid based on the detected temperature.
Trescott is directed to the field of fluid leakage detection. More particularly relates to devices useful for the monitoring and evaluation of fluid flow rates, more particularly useful as a non-invasive leak detection system capable of detecting even the smallest fluid leakage within a fluid conduit system, terminating fluid flow in response to the leak, and providing other indication, alert, and control functions (Col. 1, Lines 18-26).
Trescott discloses the method further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, a flow rate of the fluid based on the detected temperature (Abstract ,( flow rate sensor which are configured to sense the temperature of a fluid in a conduit, and then monitor the flow of that fluid through the conduit)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Trescott , because the device useful for the monitoring and evaluation of fluid flow rates, more particularly useful as a non-invasive leak detection system capable of detecting even the smallest fluid leakage within a fluid conduit system, terminating fluid flow in response to the leak, and providing other indication, alert, and control functions, (See Trescott [ Col. 1, Lines 18-26]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view of Yencho (US 7862728 B2) herein known as Yencho.
Regarding Claim 13, Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to the method further comprising detecting, with at least one fluid temperature sensor, a temperature of the fluid, and wherein the at least one processor further controls the intensity of the UV light based on the detected fluid temperature.
Yencho is directed to the purification of fluids and particularly to the purification of water. Embodiments of this invention relate to the combination of water purification systems with communication systems (Col.1, Lines 6-9).
Yencho discloses the method further comprising detecting, with at least one fluid temperature sensor, a temperature of the fluid, and wherein the at least one processor further controls the intensity of the UV light based on the detected fluid temperature (Abstract, Col.33, Lines 28-32, (the digital control system to modulate the flow according to the proper combination of UVC power, turbidity, and water temperature for a given flow rate); Col. 34, Lines1-5, (he temperature information may be used by the digital control system to modulate the valve 32 (FIG. 32) to control the flow accordingly. At lower temperatures, more UVC power and therefore lower flow is needed to kill the pathogens.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Yencho, in order to the digital control system to modulate the flow according to the proper combination of UVC power, and water temperature for a given flow rate (see Yencho, [Col. 34, Lines1-5]) , yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, as applied to the claim above, in view of Nichols et al. (US-20050125102-A1) herein known as Nichols.
Regarding Claim 14, Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to the method wherein the at least one temperature sensor includes a first temperature sensor located at a relatively upstream position with respect to the flow of the fluid and a second temperature sensor located at a relatively downstream position with respect to the flow of the fluid.
Nichols is directed to heating, ventilation, air conditioning and/or refrigeration (HVAC/R) systems, and more particularly to an apparatus and method for monitoring HVAC/R systems [0002].
Nichols discloses wherein: the at least one temperature sensor includes a first temperature sensor located at a relatively upstream position with respect to the flow of the fluid and a second temperature sensor located at a relatively downstream position with respect to the flow of the fluid. ([0011], In one aspect of the invention, the sensors typically include at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a liquid sensor, and an optical sensor. The temperature sensors typically include a first temperature sensor positioned proximate a supply air duct; a second temperature sensor positioned proximate a return air duct.)
Nichols also discloses a plurality of sensors positioned to sense various operating parameters (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Nichols, in order to sense various operating parameters (see Nichols, Abstract) , yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view of Nichols et al. (US-20050125102-A1) herein known as Nichols, as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Greenberg et al. (US 20160167792 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However modified b Bascin is silent to the method further comprising comparing, by the at least one processor, a temperature detected by the first temperature sensor and a temperature detected by the second temperature sensor, and determining that one of the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are defective based on the comparison.
Greenberg is directed to an aircraft anti-icing system used to de-ice an engine fan [0002].
Greenberg discloses comparing, by the at least one processor, a temperature detected by the first temperature sensor and a temperature detected by the second temperature sensor, and determining that one of the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are defective based on the comparison ([0005], (The system includes multiple temperature sensors, disposed at the aircraft structure, with each temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature associated with an aircraft structure location. A controller is in communication with the temperature sensors. The controller is programmed to compare outputs of the temperature sensors and to determine a temperature sensor fault condition)).
Greenberg also discloses the system 60 can continue operating with a bad temperature sensor by using the remaining inlet temperature sensors [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Greenberg, in order to the system can continue operating with a bad temperature sensor by using the remaining inlet temperature sensors (see Greenberg , [0040]) , yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view of Alexander et al. (US-20200197983-A1) herein known as Alexander.
Regarding Claim 16, Bascin is directed generally to water quality treatment, and, more particularly, to ultraviolet light treatment of an aqueous fluid [0002].
Bascin discloses a method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, the method comprising: detecting, with at least one temperature sensor, a temperature in the UV light source assembly (Fg.1 ;Abstract, [0005]- [0008] , [0018], [0024], [0033], [0035], [0038]).
However, Bascin is silent to detecting, with a flow sensor, a flow rate of the fluid through the reactor; and determining, by at least one processor, that the flow sensor is defective based on the detected temperature and the detected flow rate.
Alexander is directed to pressure washer systems, and more particularly to pressure washer systems including automated starting functionality [0002].
Alexander discloses detecting, with a flow sensor, a flow rate of the fluid through the reactor; and determining, by at least one processor, that the flow sensor is defective based on the detected temperature and the detected flow rate ([0103], (the processor may monitor one or more of the system characteristics to determine if the control module may transition 108 to another operating state, the control module may evaluate the flow sensor for the possibility of damage, defect, or other undesirable condition, if the flow sensor is determined to improperly functioning, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state, Further, both the control module temperature and the battery temperature may be monitored to determine if both are within range. If either temperature is out of range, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118); ([0110], (For example, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118 in response to detecting a battery voltage below a predetermined threshold, detecting that the flow sensor is defective, detecting that the control button is depressed and/or defected at the time of battery insertion, detecting control module temperature above a predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Alexander, wherein detecting, with a flow sensor, a flow rate of the fluid through the reactor; and determining, by at least one processor, that the flow sensor is defective based on the detected temperature and the detected flow rate, such that if the flow sensor is determined to improperly functioning, the control module may transition to the fault state (See Alexander, [0103]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Bascin discloses the method further comprising determining, with the at least one processor, a temperature parameter that is at least one of a change in the detected temperature and a rate of change in the detected temperature ([0024]; [0033]; [0038]; [0035], ( For example, a processor may modulate power output when an input from a sensor reaches a temperature threshold, an hour limit, or the like. As an example, if the characteristic is a temperature characteristic, the system may compare that temperature value to an expected temperature value, which may have an associated temperature range. If the temperature value is outside the range, either high or low, the system may then determine that a characteristic of the power supply should be modified. If, on the other hand, the temperature value is within the range, the system may determine that a characteristic of the power supply does not need to be modified).
However, modified Bascin is silent to wherein the at least one processor determines that the flow sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter exceeds a threshold value; and (ii) the flow rate measured by the flow sensor is below a threshold flow rate.
However, Bascin is silent to wherein the at least one processor determines that the flow sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter exceeds a threshold value; and (ii) the flow rate measured by the flow sensor is below a threshold flow rate.
Alexander discloses wherein the at least one processor determines that the flow sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter exceeds a threshold value; and (ii) the flow rate measured by the flow sensor is below a threshold flow rate ([0103], (the processor may monitor one or more of the system characteristics to determine if the control module may transition 108 to another operating state, the control module may evaluate the flow sensor for the possibility of damage, defect, or other undesirable condition, if the flow sensor is determined to improperly functioning, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state, Further, both the control module temperature and the battery temperature may be monitored to determine if both are within range. If either temperature is out of range, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118); ([0110], (For example, the control module may transition 108 to the fault state 118 in response to detecting a battery voltage below a predetermined threshold, detecting that the flow sensor is defective, detecting that the control button is depressed and/or defected at the time of battery insertion, detecting control module temperature above a predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Bascin discloses the method further comprising controlling, with the at least one processor, an intensity of the UV light based on the detected temperature from the at least one temperature sensor (Fg.1. ;Abstract, [0005]- [0008] , [0018], [0024], [0033], [0035], [0038]).
Alexander discloses the processor determines that the flow sensor is defective.
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view of Sui (CN-113864829-A, Machine Translation), herein known as Sui.
Regarding Claim 19, Bascin is directed generally to water quality treatment, and, more particularly, to ultraviolet light treatment of an aqueous fluid [0002].
Bascin discloses a method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, the method comprising: detecting, with an intensity sensor, an intensity of UV light emitted by the UV light source assembly; detecting, with a temperature sensor, a temperature in the UV light source assembly (Fg.1. ;Abstract, [0005]- [0008] , [0018], [0024], [0033], [0035], [0038], Claims 4 and 14).
However, Bascin is silent to determining, by at least one processor, that the intensity sensor is defective based on the detected intensity of UV light and the detected temperature in the UV light source assembly.
Sui is directed to the field of kitchen appliance technology, and in particular to a control method for a gas stove and a gas stove [n0001].
Sui disclosed determining, by at least one processor, that the intensity sensor is defective based on the detected intensity of UV light and the detected temperature in the UV light source assembly ([n0065], (Because the detection of temperature and ultraviolet intensity may have errors, or may be affected by external environmental factors, or may be due to the malfunction of thermocouples or ultraviolet intensity sensors, if one parameter is out of range but the other is within range, you can adjust the opening of the damper while observing the results.))
Sui also discloses there may be a malfunction, such as a thermocouple, ultraviolet sensor, or damper motor. In this case, the alarm device will be triggered so that the malfunction can be dealt with in a timely manner [n0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Sui, wherein determining, by at least one processor, that the intensity sensor is defective based on the detected intensity of UV light and the detected temperature in the UV light source assembly such that the alarm device will be triggered so that the malfunction can be dealt with in a timely manner (See Sui, [n0071]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claim as set forth above.
Bascin disclose the method further comprising determining, with the at least one processor, a temperature parameter that is at least one of a change in the detected temperature, a rate of change in the detected temperature, and an absolute temperature value ([0024]; [0033]; [0038]; [0035], ( For example, a processor may modulate power output when an input from a sensor reaches a temperature threshold, an hour limit, or the like. As an example, if the characteristic is a temperature characteristic, the system may compare that temperature value to an expected temperature value, which may have an associated temperature range. If the temperature value is outside the range, either high or low, the system may then determine that a characteristic of the power supply should be modified. If, on the other hand, the temperature value is within the range, the system may determine that a characteristic of the power supply does not need to be modified.)
However, Bascin is silent to wherein the at least one processor determines that the intensity sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter exceeds a threshold value; and (ii) the intensity of UV light detected by the intensity sensor is equal to or less than a threshold intensity.
Sui discloses to wherein the at least one processor determines that the intensity sensor is defective if (i) the temperature parameter exceeds a threshold value; and (ii) the intensity of UV light detected by the intensity sensor is equal to or less than a threshold intensity ( [n0065], (Because the detection of temperature and ultraviolet intensity may have errors, or may be affected by external environmental factors, or may be due to the malfunction of thermocouples or ultraviolet intensity sensors, if one parameter is out of range but the other is within range, you can adjust the opening of the damper while observing the results.);
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, as applied to the claim above, in view of Tang et al. (CN-206965703-U, Machine Translation) herein known as Tang.
Regarding Claim 21, Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to wherein the UV light source assembly is configured to be detachably coupled to the reactor.
Tang is directed to air purification devices, specifically to a tubular photocatalytic reactor [0002].
Tang discloses wherein the UV light source assembly is configured to be detachably coupled to the reactor. ([0008], (Multiple ultraviolet lamps are detachably connected to the photocatalytic inner tube along its circumference); ([0014], (the ultraviolet lamp tube and the photocatalytic inner tube are detachably connected, which is convenient for maintenance and replacement. At the same time, the amount of ultraviolet lamp tube used can be adjusted according to the content of pollutants in the exhaust gas, which is economical and practical.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Tang, wherein the UV light source assembly is configured to be detachably coupled to the reactor, such that the ultraviolet lamp tube is convenient for maintenance and replacement. At the same time, the amount of ultraviolet lamp tube used can be adjusted according to the content of pollutants, which is economical and practical (see Tang , [0014]) , yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, in view of Tang et al. (CN-206965703-U, Machine Translation) herein known as Tang, as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Sugawara et al. (WO-2020209302-A1) herein known as Sugawara.
PNG
media_image2.png
503
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Sugawara, Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 22, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, modified Bascin is silent to the method wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is cylindrically-shaped.
Sugawara is directed to a light source device and a water treatment system, and more particularly to a light source device using a light-emitting diode (LED) and a water treatment system using said light source device [0001].
Sugawara discloses wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is cylindrically-shaped ([0008]; Fig. 1).
Sugawara also discloses the invention aims to provide a light source device that exhibits sufficient waterproofing and cooling performance with a simple structure and can be manufactured at low cost [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Sugawara, wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is cylindrically-shaped, in order to provide a light source device that exhibit a simple structure and can be manufactured at low cost (See Sugawara, [0007]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascin (US 20220119280 A1) herein known as Bascin, as applied to the claim above, in view of Sugawara et al. (WO-2020209302-A1) herein known as Sugawara.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Bascin teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Bascin is silent to the method wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is at least partially made of a heat-conductive material.
Sugawara is directed to a light source device and a water treatment system, and more particularly to a light source device using a light-emitting diode (LED) and a water treatment system using said light source device [0001].
Sugawara discloses wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is at least partially made of a heat-conductive material ([0020], ( The support 10 requires that at least the outer surface layer is made of a material with high thermal conductivity. By using a support 10 with high thermal conductivity at least on the outer surface, the flexible sheet-like light source 20 can be effectively cooled)).
Sugawara also discloses the invention aims to provide a light source device that exhibits sufficient waterproofing and cooling performance with a simple structure and can be manufactured at low cost [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Bascin ‘s method of operating a system for treating a fluid that flows through a reactor and is exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from a UV light source assembly, as taught by Sugawara, wherein the UV light source assembly includes a housing that is at least partially made of a heat-conductive material, in order to provide a light source device that exhibits sufficient waterproofing and cooling performance with a simple structure and can be manufactured at low cost (See Sugawara, [0007]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights