DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on October 25, 2024, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the abstract, the third line contains the misspelled word “alsos”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, a space is required between the numerals and “mm” in line 4;
In Claim 9, a space is required between the numerals and “m” in lines 1 and 2;
In Claim 10, a space is required between the numerals and “VPP” in line 2;
In Claim 13, the word “radiation” must appear before “signature” in line 3 for consistency with the term as recited in line 2; and,
In Claim 14, a space is required between the numerals and “Hz” in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 12 recites providing a fluid for a biologic consumption and using an electromagnetic field to achieve a desired outcome for an organism. Claim 12 recites increasing plant growth. Claim 19 recites improving animal health.
The specification does not provide sufficient evidence to support enablement of these claims based on the In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), factor analysis below such that undue experimentation would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. As to the breadth of the claim, the claims encompasses all manner of consumption including oral, intravenous feeding, and absorption; all manner of plant growth whether above or below ground; and, all aspects of animal health. As to the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the invention appears to relate to some sort of fluid processing to achieve biological results yet no direction is given to achieve all those biological results. As to the state of the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and predictability in the art, no evidence supports or detracts from enablement. As to the existence of working examples, no working examples have been given to encompass all manner of consumption, plant growth, and all aspects of animal health weighing against enablement. Finally, as to the quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention, undue experimentation would be required to determine providing a treated fluid all manner of consumption, plant growth, and all aspects of improved animal health.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-19 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 9 recites electromagnetic radiation wavelength units of “m” yet these units are not defined in the claim, specification, or drawings. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring electromagnetic radiation.
Claim 10 recites electromagnetic radiation intensity units of “VPP” yet these units are not defined in the claim, specification, or drawings. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring electromagnetic radiation.
Claim 11 recites a “duty cycle” of the electromagnetic radiation yet what constitutes a duty cycle is not recites in the claim, specification, or drawings. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring electromagnetic radiation.
Claim 12 recites a method directed towards providing a fluid for biological consumption yet nothing in the claim indicates a fluid is provided.
Claim 12 recites “a desired outcome” of the claimed method yet what constitutes such is not defined in the claim, specification, or drawings.
Claim 13 recites “a radiation signature” yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings defines this limitation.
Claim 13 recites artificially generating part of a radiation signature yet the claim, specification, and drawings provide not acts that may perform this function.
Claim 14 recites units of Hz with respect to a radiation signature yet Hz, i.e., Hertz, are a measure of frequency.
Claim 19 recites “improved health” of an animal yet what constitutes an improvement is not defined by the claim, specification, or drawings.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goll, German Publication No. DE 202009009268U1 (“Goll”) in view of Bagley, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0273045 (“Bagley”). A machine translation accompanies this detailed action and the claims are mapped to that translation and the drawings in the original document.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 1-11, Goll discloses a device for treating a fluid, comprising a first tube having an inlet and an outlet configured to provide a passageway for flow of the fluid (Fig. 1, item 6, Paragraphs 9-10 (“Pr”)); a plurality of crystals (Pr6,9) disposed inside or around the passageway (Fig. 1); and a source of electromagnetic radiation disposed to irradiate the plurality of crystals (Fig. 1, items 1, 7, Pr9).
Goll does not disclose crystals having a size ranging from 5 mm to 120 mm.
Bagley also relates to a device for treating a fluid and discloses crystals having a size ranging from 5 mm to 120 mm (Pr165; note also obviousness of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use crystals in the device disclosed by Goll with those having the dimensions disclosed by Bagley because, according to Bagley, differing crystals may be used (Pr165).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: wherein the first tube is disposed within a second tube (Goll, Fig. 1, items 6, 8, Pr9 (note under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second tube includes cabinet 8)), and the plurality of crystals are disposed within a space between the first and second tubes (Goll, Fig. 1). Claim 3: wherein the first tube is disposed about a second tube (Goll, Fig. 1, items 2, 6, 8, Pr9), and the plurality of crystals are disposed within the second tube (Goll, Fig. 1, items 2, 6, 8, Pr9). Claim 4: wherein the plurality of crystals are disposed within the first tube (Goll, Fig. 1 (note mere rearrangement of parts does not distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04)). Claim 5: wherein the plurality of crystals are affixed about the first tube (Goll, Fig. 1, items 2, 6, Pr9). Claim 6: wherein the plurality of crystals are selected from the group consisting of quartz, copper, iron, a piezoelectric oscillator, and a paramagnetic material (Goll, Pr5,9 (noted disclosure of rock crystal which is quartz as evidenced by Tutton, “Rock Crystal: Its Structure and Uses,” Nature, No. 2199, Vol 88, 261-265 (1911) (“Tutton) at Page 261 (“Pg”) / Column 2 (“C”) /Pr7)). Claim 7: wherein the plurality of crystals have a lattice structure selected from the group consisting of cubic, isometric, tetragonal, orthorhombic, hexagonal, trigonal, triclinic, and monoclinic (Tutton, Pg262/C1/Pr3). Claim 8: wherein the plurality of crystals have a geometrically symmetrical lattice structure (Tutton, Figs. 4, 5, Pg262/C2/Pr5). Claim 9: wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength of 104 m to 10-12 m (Goll, Fig. 1, item 1; see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 10: wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a minimum intensity of 10 VPP to 50 VPP (Goll, Fig. 1, item 1; see also 112(b) analysis supra). Claim 11: wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a duty cycle of 23-72 (Goll, Fig. 1, item 1; see also 112(b) analysis supra).
As to Claims 12-19, an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention yet the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct, the above cited prior art appears to disclose, either alone or in combination, the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights