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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 205
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 41, 43, 45, 118, 221
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 5-11, and 21-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the limitation “the spring tension of the spring is matched with the diffusion rate of the gas permeable membrane” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means.
Applicant’s disclosure appears to describe a compression spring (figures 4 and 10-11; page 6 lines 14-27), rather than an extension (tension) spring. One of ordinary skill would not have considered a compression spring to be defined by a “spring tension” as tension is contrary to compression, and particularly since tension springs are known to be different than compression springs. It is unclear what feature(s) of the spring Applicant is referring to as “spring tension”. It is further unclear what is meant by the term “matched” with respect to “spring tension” and “diffusion rate of the gas permeable membrane”. Said tension and diffusion rate appear to be independent parameters, there is no indication of any relationship between the two, and it is unclear what feature(s) are encompassed by the term “matched”. For example, it is unclear if the “match” is made with respect to parameter(s) such as force, pressure, spring dimensions, etc., and if the relationship is one of positive correlation, negative correlation, linear, non-linear, etc. It is unclear if “match” is directed to the use of different springs, the use of a single spring capable of operation under varying diffusion rates, or some other feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how to interpret the limitation in question.
Claims 2, 5-11, 22-29 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 21-23 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlgren (US 2,502,187) in view of Schmidt-Kufeke et al. (US 4,640,803), hereon referred to as “Schmidt”, and Spring NPL.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Wahlgren teaches an apparatus for treating liquids with a gaseous medium, such as carbonating water in a container (column 1 lines 2-6), comprising a source of gas fed through supply pipe 6 (column 2 lines 11-15), a gas permeable membrane 14 in fluid communication with the source of gas (column 2 lines 21-26 and 29-31), the gas permeable membrane being adapted to release gas into the liquid by diffusing through the gas permeable membrane (column 2 lines 41-44; column 4 lines 24-26), the gas permeable membrane 14 extending between the gas assembly and a float 25 (figures 1-2; column 3 lines 71-75).
Wahlgren does not teach the source of gas comprising a gas assembly including compressed gas, the float 25 in fluid communication with the source of compressed gas and the membrane, the float including a movable piston adapted to move within a housing to thereby store a variable amount of gas within the housing such that the float has a variable buoyancy, the variable buoyancy of the float causing the float and the gas permeable membrane to ascend and descend depending on the buoyancy of the float, wherein the float is configured such that the movable piston moves in response to gas diffusing through the gas permeable membrane and the gas is released into the liquid through the gas permeable membrane, wherein the housing comprises a spring arranged to move the movable piston.
Schmidt teaches a ventilator for introducing gases into liquids (column 1 lines 4-6), comprising a source of pressurized (compressed) gas, necessarily requiring a gas assembly containing the compressed gas (column 2 lines 44-46), the gas supplied through line 12 and introduced via pipe lines 14 into the ventilator 1 which is capable of floating and therefore construed to be a “float” (column 2 lines 46-52), and escaping outwardly through radial bores 3 and hose 4 comprising superfine pores i.e., permeable membrane (column 2 lines 32-35). The reference is construed to be analogous art since it is directed to a device for introducing pressurized gas into liquids through a permeable membrane, and further since it involves means to control buoyancy and characteristics of the float in the liquid as stated below.
Schmidt further teaches an embodiment (figure 5) where the float 1 comprises a housing which forms chamber 17 containing therein plunger disk 20 (“movable piston” for claim 1 and “plunger” for claim 21), the disk adapted to move within the housing to store a variable amount of gas to adjust buoyancy. Specifically, plunger disk 20 is initially biased against partition wall 13 by spring 21 (column 3 lines 47-54). The buoyancy of the float is adjusted based on the pressure of the supplied gas, acting on the plunger disk 20, in the direction opposite the biasing force of spring 21 (column 3 lines 64-68). As the pressure of gas is supplied to the float is increased, valves 19 open and cause plunger disk 20 to be displaced toward cover 15. After the float is submerged, fluid present inside chambers 17 is forced out through holes 16, and the hollow space inside chambers 17 increases until buoyancy becomes large enough to cause the float to rise (column 4 lines 1-4). Since the buoyancy is based on the pressure of the gas supplied into the float, reduction of the gas pressure (e.g., by reducing or cutting off the supply of gas) would have necessarily reduced the pressure acting against plunger disk 20 until the biasing force of spring 21 overcomes said pressure to force the plunger disk back toward wall 13. As the plunger disk returns toward wall 13, fluid would have necessarily entered back into the float via holes 16, thereby causing a reduction of buoyancy.
Schmidt also teaches an embodiment (figure 6) in which the float 1 can include a differential-pressure switch 23 connected with outlet valve 29 in disk 20 by control leads (column 4 lines 21-51). Switch 23 is adjusted to a defined or predetermined depth of water (buoyancy) in dependence of the pressure of the liquid surrounding the float and in the form of a feedback control system. The plunger disk 20 is brought “exactly into the position in which the ventilator 1 floatingly remains at the precisely defined depth of water level”. This suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the valve 29 can be controlled to either retain or release gas present within chamber 17 based on desired buoyancy. A reduction of gas within chamber 17 would have caused the disk 20 to move back toward wall 13 (e.g., by the biasing force of compression spring 21), where fluid enters the float through cover hole 16 to thereby reduce buoyancy and cause the float to sink to a desired level within the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wahlgren such that the float incudes a movable piston and spring adapted to move within a housing, a controllable valve within the piston, and a differential-pressure switch connected to the valve since the reference already contemplates the use of a float to facilitate maneuvering the membrane and wanting variable buoyancy at the end of the membrane distal to the source of gas (column 3 line 71 to column 4 line 6; column 4 lines 15-40), in order to allow the float 25 to have controllable buoyancy, thus eliminating the need for manual input by an attendant as disclosed in Wahlgren (column 4 lines 6-10 and 37-40), and to provide automatic control of buoyancy for adjusting the desired float level in the water.
It would have been further obvious to modify Wahlgren such that the source of gas is an assembly containing compressed gas and the float is in fluid communication with said source and membrane since feeding gas to the permeable membrane would necessarily require a positive pressure differential between the source and the membrane, since compressed gas sources and associated systems are well understood and commonly practiced in the art for moving pressurized gas through systems, and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of supplying gas.
Based on the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the reduction in buoyancy described above can be performed while gas is still present within, and released through, the membrane 14 of Wahlgren. For example, reducing or stopping the supply of pressurized gas would cause a reduction of gas pressure acting against plunger disk 20 within the float. Pressure is known to be the driving force for material transfer through a membrane, therefore varying gas pressure would necessarily vary diffusion rate through the membrane. In order for the float to maintain a desired level within the fluid, valve 19/29 would be controlled to retain or release gas as explained above. In the case of the latter, the disk would then move back toward wall 13 via the biasing force of the spring 21 overcoming the reduced gas pressure acting thereon, and fluid would then re-enter chamber 17 resulting in buoyancy reduction. This would occur while the diffusion rate of the gas within Wahlgren’s membrane 14 decreases to obtain equilibrium with the reduced gas pressure. It is noted that Applicant’s disclosure appears to use this principle to adjust buoyancy of the float (page 6 lines 21-27). The structure of the prior art combination is therefore capable of performing the claimed feature of “the variable buoyancy of the float causing the float and the gas permeable membrane to ascend and descend depending on the buoyancy of the float, wherein the float is configured such that the movable piston moves in response to gas diffusing through the gas permeable membrane and the gas is released into the liquid through the gas permeable membrane.”
The combination applied above teaches spring 21, but does not specify the “spring tension of the spring is matched with the diffusion rate of the gas permeable membrane.” In view the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the “spring tension” is interpreted to be the biasing force exerted by a compression spring, and the overall limitation is interpreted in view of the specification to mean the compression spring is selected based on a required biasing force that allows movement of the plunger according to the pressure of the gas in the system. The pressure is necessarily correlated with gas diffusion rate i.e., lower pressure yields lower diffusion rate and higher pressure yields higher diffusion rate.
Spring NPL teaches compression springs are designed based on the force required for the particular application. The force F is defined by the equation F = k(Dstanding – Ddeflected), where Dstanding is the free length of the spring, Ddeflected is the length of the spring with force applied, and k is the spring constant (page 1). Springs should be designed for critical loads and rates within the central 60% deflection range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the spring to have a “spring tension matched with the diffusion rate of the gas permeable membrane” since Schmidt teaches a compression spring which exhibits a force opposing the force applied to the disk 20 via gas pressure, where compression springs are known to be designed and selected based on the required force and spring rate as taught by Spring NPL, and since an appropriate force of the spring is required for operation of the float (i.e., movement of the plunger according to the load applied by the gas pressure when adjusting buoyancy), where selection or “matching” of the “spring tension” would have been based on routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as ensuring proper operation as stated above, as well as expected life of the spring.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Wahlgren teaches the source of gas (via pipe 6) is adapted to be provided outside the container, and the float 25 and at least part of the gas permeable membrane 14 are adapted to be housed within the container (figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, Wahlgren teaches the membrane 14 comprises a flexible tube (column 2 lines 29-30).
Regarding claims 9 and 27, Wahlgren teaches the gas can be carbon dioxide (column 2 line 13).
Regarding claims 10 and 28, Wahlgren does not teach oxygen. However, the reference does not limit the type of gas (column 2 lines 11-13).
Schmidt further teaches the gas can also include air or oxygen (column 1 lines 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wahlgren such that the gas comprises oxygen since the prior art recognizes the gas to be released into liquids, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore as a substitution of art recognized equivalents and/or as a matter of choice based on the particular application.
Claims 6-7 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlgren in view of Schmidt and Spring NPL as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Buch et al. (US 2010/0181263 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 24-25, Wahlgren does not teach the float is shaped to create a hydrodynamic effect that causes the float to move generally laterally as it ascends and descends. The limitation is interpreted in view of the specification to mean the float comprises one or more fins extending laterally at an angle relative to the length of the float housing (page 6 line 35 to page 7 line 2).
Buch et al. teaches an immersed aerator (float) comprising carrier 3 having an orientation in the direction of arrow “L” (figures 1-2), the carrier 3 comprising fins, located below diffuser tubes 5, that extend laterally at a 90o angle relative to the carrier orientation. While the reference does not explicitly disclose lateral movement while the float ascends or descends, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the float of Buch et al. to move in the same manner due to the forces that would act upon the fins, and since the structure appears to be the same as that of the disclosed structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the float of Wahlgren to include horizontally extending fins since the reference already discloses float 25 comprising a horizontally extending structure (figure 1), and wanting lateral movement (column 3 lines 28-40), in order to facilitate exposing the entire volume of the container to uniform exposure, and to facilitate movement of the float into a desirable position e.g., below second manhole 23, as shown by the dashed lines in figure 2.
Claims 8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlgren in view of Schmidt and Spring NPL as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 2006/0145366 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Wahlgren does not teach a valve for controlling the flow of gas from the source of gas to the float and the gas permeable membrane.
Thomas teaches an apparatus for introducing gas into a liquid (abstract) comprising a source of pressurized gas 13 connected to regulating valve 12, the valve connected to an immersed cup 1 by hose 10, the valve controlling pressure and flow rate of the gas into the immersed cup 1 (figure 1; paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the source of gas to include a regulating valve since the float of Schmidt in the combination applied to claim 1 requires adjusting gas pressure (column 3 lines 64-68), since regulator valves are well known and commonly used in the art, and therefore to allow the buoyancy of the float to be adjusted from a remote location e.g., outside of the container.
Claims 11 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlgren in view of Schmidt and Spring NPL as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Kolls (US 2014/0154369 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Wahlgren does not teach the gas is infused with one or more flavors or aromas.
Kolls teaches a cartridge containing a gas source to be dissolved into a liquid such as a beverage (abstract), where the cartridge contains an “aroma enhanced solid gas source” 202 through which sublimation emits a gas, where carbon dioxide in frozen form is mixed with a frozen aroma precipitate to form the aroma enhanced solid gas source (paragraphs 305, 348 and 376).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas source of Wahlgren to infuse the gas with aroma since the reference discloses carbonating water in treatment plants (column 1 lines 4-6), where adding aromas (or treatment chemicals that emit aromas) to the gas would counteract or mask any undesired aromas emitted from the water, since there does not appear to be any criticality or unexpected result associated with the claimed feature, and therefore to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I.(C-D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2025 have been fully considered but the amendments to claims 1 and 21 necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues Schmidt does not teach automatic reduction of buoyancy in response to gas diffusion due to manual action required by valves 19.
While the argument is acknowledged, the amendments to claims 1 and 21 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Schmidt further teaches that buoyancy can be automatically controlled such that the ventilator (float) is maintained at a set level within the fluid. Valve 19/29 can be connected to a differential-pressure sensor and controlled to open such that gas is released from the ventilator, where the release would result in an automatic reduction of buoyancy as explained in the Office Action above.
Applicant argues the spring tension of the spring is matched with the diffusion rate of the gas permeable membrane, and the spring 21 of Schmidt is unrelated to diffusion of the gas through the membrane since outlet valves 19 are closed during diffusion and thus isolated from the spring.
The argument has been considered, but the new grounds of rejection address the argued feature. The valve 19/29 can be controlled to retain or release gas as explained above, where control of buoyancy would be performed to maintain the float at a set level. Likewise, the amount of force applied to the spring by the gas (construed to be “spring tension”) would have necessarily varied with the diffusion rate through the membrane (construed to be a “match” between the two) as explained for claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792