DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Matthews et al. (US Pat. 8,975,596) in view of Cole et al. (US PGPub 2015/0090903) does not teach or disclose the recited amended claims.
Specifically, the combination would not have been obvious to modify the drink container in Matthews with the teachings of Cole in that a POSITA would not have looked to Cole’s management system to modify a drink container. Examiner disagrees as Cole teaches controlling the operational parameters of at least one UV light source (see abstract of Cole) to include any human interface that is connected to the at least one server used for providing a central storage location for usage data for the interfaces in communication with the server. Furthermore, while the server-based architecture may be more complex, does not render the combination inoperable.
Applicant further argues that the drink container of Matthew emphasizes the need to be self-sufficient and operate autonomously. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Furthermore, the cited section regarding the user controls 56 (see col. 7-8, lines 56-4) simply state that controls may take any suitable form, such that the controls are configured to permit a user to selectively activate the UV bulb and purify a column of liquid contained in the drink container. The wireless communication with an interface connected to a server which can control a UV light source as taught by Cole is an obvious alternative to a suitable form of control as Matthew seeks.
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (for example in paragraph [0094] and amended claim 38 of the instant application). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 30-32, 35-44, and 47-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US Pat. 8,975,596, hereinafter Matthews) in view of Cole (US PGPub 2015/0090903, hereinafter Cole) and in further view of Romo et al. (US PGPub 2015/0367008, hereinafter Romo).
Regarding claim 30, Matthews discloses a container system (water purifying drink containers, see abstract) comprising:
a container having an internal surface defining an interior configured to hold a substance therein, the container configured to block UVC light (liquid containers 12 are adapted to receive and hold a volume of drink liquid 16 for selective purification, see col. 2, lines 45-51; container 12 is configured such that UV light emitted by the purification assembly 50 is reflected by and/or otherwise does not pass through the walls, lower surface, and/or other solid boundaries of the liquid container, see col. 3, lines 49-56; when provided is positioned and configured to reflect light from the UV light emitter toward the internal compartment of the liquid container, see col. 11, lines 57-64); and
a lid configured to removably attach to the container (cap assembly 14 is adapted to be removably coupled to the neck 18 of a liquid container 12 to cover, or otherwise enclose, the opening 19, see col. 4, lines 7-15), the lid comprising:
a rechargeable battery (power supply 60 may include one or more of rechargeable batteries, see col. 8, lines 48-53); and
at least one UVC LED coupled to the rechargeable battery (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitter 52 adapted to emit light (e.g. UV-C range) in the germicidal range, see col. 5, lines 20-40; power supply 60 configured to supply power to the UV light emitter 52, see col. 8, lines 48-49),
a controller including a process configured to activate the at least one UVC LED (controller 54 configured for powering the UV light emitter, see col. 9, lines 15-24; including a microprocessor 302 for controlling operation of the purification assembly, see col. 15, lines 58-67);
wherein the lid is attached to the container, the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light for disinfection of at least one of the internal surface, the interior of the container, or the substance when held within the interior of the container (cap assembly 14 is adapted to be removably coupled to the neck 18 of a liquid container 12 to cover, or otherwise enclose, the opening 19, see col. 4, lines 7-15; UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitter 52 adapted to emit light (e.g. UV-C range) in the germicidal range, see col. 5, lines 20-40; UV light emitter is positioned within the cap assembly 14 such that when activated, the UV light emitter 52 emits UV light toward any drink liquid 16 held within the internal compartment 20 of liquid container 12, see col. 5, lines 44-52).
Matthews fails to disclose a communication interface coupled to the processor, wherein the communication interface is configured to communicate with a remote device via a wireless link.
Cole discloses the system can be communicated to the processor by a wireless communication connection (data of UV light source may be transmitted wirelessly to a human interface device, see paragraph [0136]). Cole teaches the wireless networking allows an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device (see paragraph [0136]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting a communication interface in communication with a device via a wireless link.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by having the communication interface configured to communicate with a remote device via a wireless link for the purpose of allowing an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0136]).
Matthew fails to disclose the processor is configured to communicate via a wireless connection.
Cole discloses the system can be communicated to the processor by a wireless communication connection (data of UV light source may be transmitted wirelessly to a human interface device (which includes a keyboard and/or touch screen, i.e. computer), see paragraph [0136]). Cole teaches the wireless networking allows an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device (see paragraph [0136]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting a processor in communication with a device via a wireless link.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by having the communication interface configured to communicate with a remote device, such as a computer, via a wireless link for the purpose of allowing an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0136]).
The combination of Matthews and Cole fails to teach a communication interface to be a smart phone.
Romo discloses a mobile computing device 3550 that may be a part of a control system of the sterilization units (mobile devices including smartphones to communicate through a digital network to control sterilization units, see paragraph [0251]; including UV-C radiation for sterilization, see abstract).
Romo modifies the combination of Matthews and Cole by suggesting a mobile computing device including a smartphone to control a device remotely.
Since all inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Matthews and Cole by providing a mobile computing device including a smartphone to control a device remotely for the purpose of allowing greater control of remote devices via wireless communication as taught by Romo.
Regarding claim 31, Matthews discloses the internal surface is UVC reflective (container 12 is configured such that UV light emitted by the purification assembly 50 is reflected by and/or otherwise does not pass through the walls, lower surface, and/or other solid boundaries of the liquid container, see col. 3, lines 49-56).
Regarding claim 32, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to be operated by a controller 54 (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm (e.g. UVC range), see col. 5, lines 20-30; controller 54 controls operation of the UV light emitter, see col. 10, lines 7-62).
Matthews does not explicitly disclose the UVC LED is configured to deactivate in the presence of visible light.
Matthews discloses the controller 54 is capable of controlling the length of time the UV light is active for (e.g. counting or tracking of the length of time of a UV bulb, number of cycles a UV bulb has been activated for, etc., see col. 10, lines 7-62) as well as various detectors (e.g. detector 61 for detecting amount of UV light transmits through the liquid, see col. 9, lines 25-59).
Furthermore, Cole discloses a motion sensor, such as a proximity sensor, to detection motion in an area that at least partially encloses the target area, such that the UV light source 112 can be turned off to reduce UV exposure to an unintended target, such as a user (see paragraph [0095]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a motion sensor in an area at least partially enclosing the target area.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a motion sensor in an area at least partially enclosing the target area in the presence of visible light for the purpose of reducing UV exposure to an unintended target, such as a user as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 35, Matthews discloses the rechargeable battery is configured to be recharged by at least wall charger or solar power (charging port 68 is adapted to receive a charging probe, or plug, see col. 8, lines 56-62; or alternatively a recharging cord may include a wall adapter, see col. 9, lines 6-14; including charging port may be a solar panel, see col. 9, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 36, Matthews discloses the presentation interface coupled to the processor and configured to present information to a user related to the disinfection of at least one of the internal surface, the interior, or the substance when held within the interior of the container (microprocessor 302 controlling operation of the purification assembly, see col. 15, lines 58-67; user display 58 displays a variety of information to a user (e.g. status of purification assembly, power supply is currently being charged, number of cycles bulb has performed, time remaining during a purification cycle, etc.), see col. 8, lines 28-47).
Regarding claim 37, Matthews discloses a user input interface coupled to the processor and configured to receive input from a user to activate the at least one UVC LED for the disinfection of at least one of the internal surface, the interior, or the substance when held within the interior of the container (microprocessor 302 controlling operation of the purification assembly, see col. 15, lines 58-67; user display 58 displays a variety of information to a user (e.g. status of purification assembly, power supply is currently being charged, number of cycles bulb has performed, time remaining during a purification cycle, etc.), see col. 8, lines 28-47; user display 58 enables a user to selectively navigate menus to display information, see col. 8, lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Matthews and Cole fails to disclose the wireless connection is a Bluetooth® link.
Romo discloses mobile computing device 3550 may communicate wirelessly to include Bluetooth® (short range communication may occur using a Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi™, or other such transceiver, see paragraph [0262]).
Romo modifies the combination of Matthews and Cole by suggesting using Bluetooth® as a means of wireless communication.
Since all inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Matthews and Cole by providing Bluetooth® as an art recognized equivalence for wireless communication as taught by Romo.
Regarding claim 39, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light having a wavelength from about 100 nm to about 280 nm (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm, see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 40, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light having a wavelength from about 240 nm to about 280 nm (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm, see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 41, Matthews discloses the substance includes water (drink containers that are configured to purify water, see col. 1, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 42, Matthews discloses a container system (water purifying drink containers, see abstract) comprising:
a portable container having an internal surface defining an interior configured to hold a substance therein (liquid containers 12 are adapted to receive and hold a volume of drink liquid 16 for selective purification, see col. 2, lines 45-51; drink containers that are configured to purify water, see col. 1, lines 22-24); and
a lid configured to removably attach to the portable container a lid configured to removably attach to the container (cap assembly 14 is adapted to be removably coupled to the neck 18 of a liquid container 12 to cover, or otherwise enclose, the opening 19, see col. 4, lines 7-15), the lid comprising:
a rechargeable power supply (power supply 60 may include one or more of rechargeable batteries, see col. 8, lines 48-53); and
at least one UVC LED coupled to the rechargeable battery (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitter 52 adapted to emit light (e.g. UV-C range) in the germicidal range, see col. 5, lines 20-40; power supply 60 configured to supply power to the UV light emitter 52, see col. 8, lines 48-49), wherein the lid is attached to the container, the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light for disinfection of at least one of the internal surface, the interior of the container, or the substance when held within the interior of the container (cap assembly 14 is adapted to be removably coupled to the neck 18 of a liquid container 12 to cover, or otherwise enclose, the opening 19, see col. 4, lines 7-15; UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitter 52 adapted to emit light (e.g. UV-C range) in the germicidal range, see col. 5, lines 20-40; UV light emitter is positioned within the cap assembly 14 such that when activated, the UV light emitter 52 emits UV light toward any drink liquid 16 held within the internal compartment 20 of liquid container 12, see col. 5, lines 44-52),
at least one processor electrically coupled to the rechargeable battery and in communication with the at least one UVC LED, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the at least one UVC LED (microprocessor 302 controlling operation of the purification assembly, see col. 15, lines 58-67; user display 58 displays a variety of information to a user (e.g. status of purification assembly, power supply is currently being charged, number of cycles bulb has performed, time remaining during a purification cycle, etc.), see col. 8, lines 28-47);
a user interface coupled to the at least one processor and configured to receive input from a user, wherein the input from the user activates the at least one UVC LED (user controls 56 permits a user to selectively activate the UV bulb and thereby purify a volume of liquid contained in the container by, for example, an on/off, power, switch or button, 66, see col. 7, lines 57-64; UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitter 52 adapted to emit light (e.g. UV-C range) in the germicidal range, see col. 5, lines 20-40); and
a presentation interface coupled to the at least one processor and configured to present information to the user related to the disinfection of at least one of the internal surface, the interior, or the substance when held within the interior of the portable container (user display 58 displays a variety of information to a user (e.g. status of purification assembly, power supply is currently being charged, number of cycles bulb has performed, time remaining during a purification cycle, etc.), see col. 8, lines 28-47; user display 58 enables a user to selectively navigate menus to display information, see col. 8, lines 16-27).
Matthews fails to disclose a communication interface coupled to the processor, wherein the communication interface is configured to communicate with a remote device via a wireless link.
Cole discloses the system can be communicated to the processor by a wireless communication connection (data of UV light source may be transmitted wirelessly to a human interface device, see paragraph [0136]). Cole teaches the wireless networking allows an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device (see paragraph [0136]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting a communication interface in communication with a device via a wireless link.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by having the communication interface configured to communicate with a remote device via a wireless link for the purpose of allowing an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0136]).
Matthew fails to disclose the processor is configured to communicate via a wireless connection.
Cole discloses the system can be communicated to the processor by a wireless communication connection (data of UV light source may be transmitted wirelessly to a human interface device (which includes a keyboard and/or touch screen, i.e. computer), see paragraph [0136]). Cole teaches the wireless networking allows an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device (see paragraph [0136]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting a processor in communication with a device via a wireless link.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by having the communication interface configured to communicate with a remote device, such as a computer, via a wireless link for the purpose of allowing an operator at a central location to control various parameters without the need to set the parameters at each device as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0136]).
The combination of Matthews and Cole fails to teach a communication interface to be a smart phone.
Romo discloses a mobile computing device 3550 that may be a part of a control system of the sterilization units (mobile devices including smartphones to communicate through a digital network to control sterilization units, see paragraph [0251]; including UV-C radiation for sterilization, see abstract).
Romo modifies the combination of Matthews and Cole by suggesting a mobile computing device including a smartphone to control a device remotely.
Since all inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Matthews and Cole by providing a mobile computing device including a smartphone to control a device remotely for the purpose of allowing greater control of remote devices via wireless communication as taught by Romo.
Regarding claim 43, Matthews discloses the internal surface of the portable container is UVC reflective (reflective surface 72 when provided is positioned and configured to reflect light from the UV light emitter toward the internal compartment of the liquid container, see col. 11, lines 57-64).
Regarding claim 44, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to be operated by a controller 54 (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm (e.g. UVC range), see col. 5, lines 20-30; controller 54 controls operation of the UV light emitter, see col. 10, lines 7-62).
Matthews does not explicitly disclose the UVC LED is configured to deactivate in the presence of visible light.
Matthews discloses the controller 54 is capable of controlling the length of time the UV light is active for (e.g. counting or tracking of the length of time of a UV bulb, number of cycles a UV bulb has been activated for, etc., see col. 10, lines 7-62) as well as various detectors (e.g. detector 61 for detecting amount of UV light transmits through the liquid, see col. 9, lines 25-59).
Furthermore, Cole discloses a motion sensor, such as a proximity sensor, to detection motion in an area that at least partially encloses the target area, such that the UV light source 112 can be turned off to reduce UV exposure to an unintended target, such as a user (see paragraph [0095]).
Cole modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a motion sensor in an area at least partially enclosing the target area.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a motion sensor in an area at least partially enclosing the target area in the presence of visible light for the purpose of reducing UV exposure to an unintended target, such as a user as taught by Cole (see paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Matthews and Cole fails to disclose the wireless connection is a Bluetooth® link.
Romo discloses mobile computing device 3550 may communicate wirelessly to include Bluetooth® (short range communication may occur using a Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi™, or other such transceiver, see paragraph [0262]).
Romo modifies the combination of Matthews and Cole by suggesting using Bluetooth® as a means of wireless communication.
Since all inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Matthews and Cole by providing Bluetooth® as an art recognized equivalence for wireless communication as taught by Romo.
Regarding claim 48, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light having a wavelength from about 100 nm to about 280 nm (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm, see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 49, Matthews discloses the at least one UVC LED is configured to emit UVC light having a wavelength from about 240 nm to about 280 nm (UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm, see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 50, Matthews discloses the substance includes water (drink containers that are configured to purify water, see col. 1, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 51, Matthews discloses the portable container and the lid when attached to the portable container are configured to inhibit UVC light generated from the at least one UVC LED from exiting the interior of the portable container (reflective surface 72 when provided is positioned and configured to reflect light from the UV light emitter toward the internal compartment of the liquid container, see col. 11, lines 57-64; UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm (e.g. UVC range), see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 52, Matthews discloses the container and the lid when attached to the container are configured to inhibit UVC light generated from the at least one UVC LED from exiting the interior of the portable container (reflective surface 72 when provided is positioned in the cap assembly 14 and configured to reflect light from the UV light emitter toward the internal compartment of the liquid container, see col. 11, lines 57-64; UV light emitter comprises LEDs to emit light in the germicidal spectrum, see col. 7, lines 50-56; UV light emitters 52 emit light in a range of approximately 200 nm to 380 nm (e.g. UVC range), see col. 5, lines 20-30).
Claims 33-34 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Cole and in further view of Romo and in view of Maiden (US PGPub 2015/0053624, hereinafter Maiden) as evidenced by Maiden (US Pat. 8,197,771, hereinafter ‘771, incorporated in full with Maiden from paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 33, Matthews fails to disclose a filter removably positioned in the container and configured to remove agents from the substance in the container.
Maiden discloses a system 100 includes a filter 70 that prefilters the water flowing into a container (filter 70 removes larger microbes from water flowing into the bladder, see paragraph [0040]). Maiden teaches the filter 70 can be removably attached to a container (as evidenced by Fig. 8 of ‘771 where a filter element 170 is interconnected between two bottles with a removable connector ring).
Maiden modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a filter for the container.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal system, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a filter for the purpose of removing larger microbes for the purpose of reducing the amount of microbes required for exposure to UV light in the container.
Regarding claim 34, Matthews fails to disclose a light amplifying device adjacent the at least one UVC LED and configured to amplify the output of the at least one UVC LED.
Maiden discloses the amplifying chamber 12 is adjacent the UV light sources 16 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0023]). Maiden teaches the amplifying chamber 12 is highly reflective of the germicidal UV light and repeatedly redirects the UV light that reaches the inner surface back through the fluid in essentially all directions, resulting in the purification of the contained fluid (see paragraph [0023]). Maiden teaches a small fraction of the total UV energy is required to purify the amount of fluid contained in the chamber (see paragraph [0023]).
Maiden modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a highly reflective chamber adjacent the UV light source.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a highly reflective chamber adjacent the UV light source for the purpose of reducing the total amount of UV energy required for purification as taught by Maiden.
Regarding claim 45, Matthews fails to disclose a filter removably positioned in the container and configured to remove agents from the substance in the container.
Maiden discloses a system 100 includes a filter 70 that prefilters the water flowing into a container (filter 70 removes larger microbes from water flowing into the bladder, see paragraph [0040]). Maiden teaches the filter 70 can be removably attached to a container (as evidenced by Fig. 8 of ‘771 where a filter element 170 is interconnected between two bottles with a removable connector ring).
Maiden modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a filter for the container.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal system, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a filter for the purpose of removing larger microbes for the purpose of reducing the amount of microbes required for exposure to UV light in the container.
Regarding claim 46, Matthews fails to disclose a light amplifying device adjacent the at least one UVC LED and configured to amplify the output of the at least one UVC LED.
Maiden discloses the amplifying chamber 12 is adjacent the UV light sources 16 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0023]). Maiden teaches the amplifying chamber 12 is highly reflective of the germicidal UV light and repeatedly redirects the UV light that reaches the inner surface back through the fluid in essentially all directions, resulting in the purification of the contained fluid (see paragraph [0023]). Maiden teaches a small fraction of the total UV energy is required to purify the amount of fluid contained in the chamber (see paragraph [0023]).
Maiden modifies Matthews by suggesting providing a highly reflective chamber adjacent the UV light source.
Since both inventions are drawn to UV germicidal systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Matthews by providing a highly reflective chamber adjacent the UV light source for the purpose of reducing the total amount of UV energy required for purification as taught by Maiden.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights