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 .
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member.” However, it is unclear what structure or material property required by the term “ultraviolet ray absorbing.” The specification does not identify the member as being made of a particular ultraviolet ray absorbing material or specify any minimum ultraviolet absorptance. Rather, the specification merely states that “the ultraviolet rays UV, which are not reflected by the cone-shaped ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member 32, are absorbed by the cone-shaped ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member 32 per se and the cone-shaped ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member 31, so that the ultraviolet rays UV can be attenuated” (para. [0021]) and “the cone-shaped ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member 31 can be made of the same ultraviolet ray reflecting material of the cone-shaped ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member 32. Of course, the leakage amount of ultraviolet rays would be increased, which would create no problem” (para. [0044]). Thus, the specification indicates that both the absorbing member and the reflecting member may be made of the same reflecting material and that even the reflecting member absorbs some no-reflected ultraviolet radiation. Because virtually any non-perfectly reflecting material absorbs at least some incident ultraviolet radiation, the claim does not provide an objective boundary for determining which structures satisfy the “ultraviolet ray absorbing” limitation.
Claims 2-16 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240199447A1 [hereinafter Wada] in view of CN2932324Y [hereinafter Yang].
As discussed in the 112(b)-rejection section, it is unclear what material/physical properties required to be a “ultraviolet ray absorbing member.” The apparent ultraviolet-shielding function of “ultraviolet ray absorbing member” as described in the specification does not depend on any particular ultraviolet-absorbing material; rather, paragraph [0021] explains the leakage-prevention function appears to result from the member’s position and size, which intercept or shield ultraviolet rays travelling toward the inlet. Because Wada disclose a bigger-size reflective material coated-plate located downstream of a smaller-size inlet, and reflects ultraviolet rays and prevents from being directed outside the transmission tube, Wada’s reflective plate reads on the claimed “ultraviolet rays absorbing member.”
Wada teaches a fluid processing apparatus (Fig. 1- fluid sterilization device 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
565
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a casing (Fig.1 -housing 10) partitioned by a fluid processing region, a fluid inlet region on an upstream side of said fluid processing region and having a fluid inlet, and a fluid outlet region on a downstream side of said fluid processing region and having a fluid outlet (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
a hollow fluid passage pipe (Fig. 1- channel tube 20) provided in said fluid processing region of said casing;
an ultraviolet ray emitting unit (Fig. 1- UV light source unit 30) provided in said fluid outlet region of said casing;
an ultraviolet ray absorbing member and an ultraviolet ray reflecting member (para. [0074]: Wada teaches disposing a larger-size plate 50 between the smaller-size inlet 11 and the channel tube, the “plate 50 is made of PTFE. PTFE having high ultraviolet reflectance is used to reflect ultraviolet rays reaching the end surface of the channel tube 20 on the inlet 11 side and return the ultraviolet rays to the inside of the channel tube 20, thereby enhancing the irradiation efficiency of ultraviolet rays with respect to water”); and
an inner diameter of said casing in said fluid processing region being (annotated Fig. 1- D2) larger than an inner diameter of said fluid inlet (annotated Fig. 1-D1).
However, Wada does not specially note a fluid branching and joining member provided over said fluid inlet region and said fluid processing region of said casing and fixed by ribs to said casing, said fluid branching and joining member comprising: a fluid branching member having a first cone-shaped structure with a first apex opposing said fluid inlet and a first vertical angle of said first apex; and a fluid joining member having a second cone-shaped structure with a second apex opposing said fluid outlet and a second vertical angle of said second apex smaller than said first vertical angle, a bottom face of said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member being fixed to a bottom face of said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member.
Yang teaches a “double-cone flow meter” positioned at the inlet side of a tube 2 (see annotated Fig. 1 below and para. [0002]). Specifically, Yang teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a fluid branching and joining member (Fig.1 – double-cone flow meter 2) provided over said fluid inlet region and said fluid processing region of said casing (Fig. 1 -measuring tube 1) and fixed by ribs (Fig. 1 -bracket 11) to said casing (para. [0027]: “the wing-shaped bracket is used to connect with the measuring tube, so that the biconical body is fixedly supported and positioned in the measuring tube”);
said fluid branching and joining member comprising:
a fluid branching member (Figs. 1-2- front cone 13) having a first cone-shaped structure with a first apex opposing said fluid inlet and a first vertical angle of said first apex (Figs. 1-2 and para. [0027]: front cone has a first taper α); and
a fluid joining member (Figs. 1-2- rear cone 15) having a second cone-shaped structure with a second apex opposing said fluid outlet and a second vertical angle of said second apex smaller than said first vertical angle (Figs. 1-2 and para. [0027]: rear cone has a second taper b, and “The taper of the front cone 13 is greater than the taper of the rear cone 15”);
a bottom face of said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member being fixed to a bottom face of said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member (Figs. 1-2: the bottom face of front cone is fixed to the rear cone).
As such, in view of Wada’ teaching, modify Yang’s double-cone branching and joining members by forming, or coating, the cone surface with a similar ultraviolet reflecting material would result in both the front branching cone and the rear joining cone reflect UV rays back into the fluid processing region. In addition, by positioning the reflective front branching cone adjacent the inlet and configuring its maximum diameter to be larger than the inlet opening, the front branching cone would also reduce ultraviolet leakage through the inlet.
Wada teaches a fluid sterilization device with perforated PTFE plate positioned between smaller fluid inlet and larger fluid processing passage to reflect UV rays. Yang teaches a double-cone shaped flow regulating member positioned in a fluid passage branches incoming fluid outward and thereafter gradually rejoins the fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to substitute Wada’s perforated PTFE plate with the modified UV reflective double-cone fluid regulating body of Yang , because both references are directed to regulating fluid within a tubular passage, and Yang expressly states a double-cone body positioned in a tubular passage can gradually decelerate the inlet fluid, delay separation of the accelerated fluid, thereby reducing flow resistance and pressure loss and providing stable operation, long-term stability, and good tolerance of high-speed or dirty fluid (para. [0013]). As such, the modified fluid treatment device would obtain a more stable and uniform flow through the UV processing region and thereby improving the effectiveness and reliability of the UV treatment.
Regarding Claim 3:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein an inner edge face on a fluid inlet side of said hollow fluid passage pipe forms a curved-face, so that a fluid passage cross section is gradually decreased from the inner edge face on the fluid inlet side to said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member (in the modified fluid processing apparatus, it is obvious that the inner edge face on the fluid inlet side on the transmission pipe can be configured to a curved-face to mate with the shape of the double-cone, and flow passage cross-sectional area between the inlet-side curved inner surface of the housing and the enlarging first cone gradually decrease toward the common-based region where the first and second cone meet).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein an inner diameter of said fluid inlet is smaller than an inner diameter formed at said fluid inlet formed by extensions of envelope lines of said first cone structure (Since in Wada, the inner diameter formed by the plate 50 is greater than the inner diameter of the inlet for better UV shielding, it is obvious to also configured the substituting front cone to have a same larger inner diameter since it serves the same UV shielding function in the modified apparatus).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. Yang further teaches where said first cone-shaped structure comprises a circular or polygonal cone-shaped structure (as shown in Fig. 1, the front cone is a circular cone-shaped structure).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. Yang further teaches where said second cone-shaped structure comprises a circular or polygonal cone-shaped structure (as shown in Fig. 1, the rare cone is a circular cone-shaped structure).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member and said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member comprise a same ultraviolet ray reflecting material (Since Wada expressly teaches affixing reflective film such as PEPT film to the fluid tube to reflect UV rays transmitted through the tube 21, the same reflective material can be used to form both the front cone and rear cone of Yang to maximize the UV reflection).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 8. Yang further teaches wherein said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member and said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member comprise a single ultraviolet ray reflecting material (as shown in Fig. 2, the front cone and the rear cone are made of a single material to form an integrated configuration).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. The combined references further teach an O-ring inserted between said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member and said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member (Wada teaches using O-ring 60 to seal the plate 50 and the channel tube 20, and between the housing 10 and the plate 50, to “prevent water from leaking from gaps between the respective members” (para. [0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to similarly provide O-rings between the branching and joining members in the modified apparatus for better sealing results).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. Wada further teaches wherein said hollow fluid passage pipe comprises an ultraviolet ray reflecting material (Fig. 1 and para. [0067]: “the unsintered PTFE film is wound around the transparent tube 21 to form the reflector 22”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. Wada further teaches wherein said casing comprise a first casing provided over said fluid inlet region, said fluid processing region and said fluid outlet region and a second casing provided over said fluid outlet region, said first and second casings being separated from each other to incorporate said ultraviolet ray emitting unit (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, the second casing that only covers the upper outlet region is separated from the first casing covers the entire lower regions, and the UV emitting unit 30 is incorporated between two casings).
PNG
media_image3.png
565
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 13. Wada further teaches wherein a diameter of said first casing in said fluid outlet region on a side of said fluid processing region is larger than a diameter of said first casing in said fluid processing region, to accommodate said ultraviolet ray emitting unit into said fluid outlet region (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, the diameter D3 of first casing in fluid outlet region is larger than the diameter D2 of first casing in fluid processing region)
PNG
media_image4.png
516
829
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein a maximum outer diameter of said fluid branching and joining member is larger than an inner diameter of said casing in said fluid inlet region (since the inner diameter of casing in the fluid processing region is larger than an inner diameter of said fluid inlet (as discussed in claim 1), the maximum outer diameter of the fluid branching and joining member is also larger than the an inner diameter of said fluid inlet, otherwise inlet flow would pass the upper and lower ends of the fluid branching and joining member freely).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Yang, further in view of CN102928028A [hereinafter Huang].
Regarding Claim 2:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein said second apex is from 45°to 80°. Huang teaches a double-cone flowmeter includes a biconical body 3 placed inside a pipe 2 (see annotated Fig. 1 below). Specifically, Huang teaches wherein said second apex is from 45°to 80° (para. [0023]: “The flow-in and flow-out surfaces of the double-cone body of the throttle element are composed of two cones with a taper of 45 °”).
PNG
media_image5.png
375
571
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yang teaches a double cone flowmeter where a taper of a rear cone is 7° to 30°. Huang teaches a double cone flowmeter where a taper of a rear cone is 45 °. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the rear cone of Yang with a vertical angle of 45 °, since selecting a known angle for a similar device would have been a predictable optimization of the cone profile to provide stable fluid guidance pressure recovery.
Regarding Claim 10:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein said ribs are mounted on said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member. Huang teaches wherein said ribs are mounted on said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member (see annotated Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
371
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yang teaches a double cone flowmeter where the front cone is affixed to the fluid pipe/housing via brackets and shafts. Huang teaches a double cone flowmeter where the front cone is affixed to the fluid pipe/housing directly via supporting columns. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Yang using Huang’s supporting columns, so that the front cone is directly mounted to the housing/pipe via the supporting columns, providing a simple and rigid support arrangement that maintains the cone coaxially within the surrounding tube and preservers substantially uniform flow passage around the cone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Yang, further in view of US 20030014821A1 [hereinafter Boyd].
Regarding Claim 5:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that where said first cone-shaped structure comprises a stepwise cone-shaped structure. Boyd teaches where said first cone-shaped structure comprises a stepwise cone-shaped structure (see annotated Fig. 2A below and paras. [0023-0024, 0029]: an air control assembly 33 includes a solid plug 34 positioned in the air passage way, “the plug 34 …has steps shown at 34S that extend circumferentially around the plug. When the valve is opened, plug moves away from the surrounding housing, opens “air passes between plug side surface 38 and housing interior surface 46, thereby allowing airflow through the valve apparatus 110”).
PNG
media_image7.png
951
1132
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to form Yang’s first cone-shaped fluid branching member with the stepped-cone configuration taught by Boyd as a known alternative exterior geometry for a conical member exposed to surrounding fluid flow, and the stepped configuration would provide a progressive change in the effective flow passage along the cone surface and thereby permit gradual regulation of the fluid flowing round the cone.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Yang, further in view of CN 113440988 B [hereafter Li]
Regarding Claim 16:
Wada in view of Yang teaches the fluid processing apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein said ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member comprises a first polyangular pyramid member with a first bottom face, and said ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member comprises a second polyangular pyramid member with a second bottom face coupled to said first bottom face.
Li teaches gas-water separator. Specially, Li teaches placing a waterproof structure in the fluid path, and when gas/water reaches the surface, the surface redirects the water so it does not enter the air inlet. Li expressly teaches the waterproof structure 3 “can be a spherical surface, a conical surface, or a polygonal pyramid surface” (para. [0043]).
As such, modify the reflective double-cone body in Wada/Yang would entail each of the ultraviolet ray absorbing and fluid branching member and the ultraviolet ray reflecting and fluid joining member has a polyangular pyramid shape and their bottom faces are coupled to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to form each of Yang’s conical member as a corresponding polyangular pyramided, which retaining Yang’s bottom face-to-bottom face connection as a known faceted alternative to a conical fluid guiding surface and providing defined flow-guiding paths along the intersecting. faces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights