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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15, 18, 20-21, 23-24, 27, and 29-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed most objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 23 and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reasoning and teaching applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of compact prosecution and clarity of record, Examiner notes the following claim interpretations:
For Claims 2-3, which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed reactor, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. The concentration of the gas is a material or article worked upon. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
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 1-15, 18, 20-21, 23, 24, 27, and 29-33 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 “second cavitation device creating cavitation and mixing liquid and gas solely from the second nozzle entrance”. It is unclear whether this passage means:
a second cavitation device with gas solely from the second nozzle, which appears to exclude gas from a first nozzle entrance,
If so, introduces new matter given instant specification [0033]:
“The location of the gas input is identified by reference letter "A". Each time gas is added to the solution, the mixture is subject to cavitation or turbulence in order to aid in the dissolution of the gas into the solution.”
and [0044]:
“Figure 5 illustrates a gas/liquid mixing nozzle 900 which can be used to create cavitation or turbulence …in the flow through step (S2)”, and Fig. 2A-2C showing gas inputs “A” both before and between the first and subsequent mixing cavitation devices “X”. There does not appear to be support for removing gas introduced upstream of the second nozzle entrance.
OR
second cavitation device creating cavitation solely approximate to the second nozzle entrance and thereby mixing liquid and gas
This is the Examiner interpretation for the purpose of compact prosecution
Claim(s) 2-15, 18, 20-21, and 31-33 depend(s) on claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 23 recites “A method for mixing gases and liquids comprising…
c. mixing the predetermined amount of liquid and the respective predetermined amount of the gas in the reactor vessel using a respective cavitation device following each of the plurality of different locations of the respective gas inputs to form a respective mixture, where each of the respective cavitation devices mixes and creates cavitation solely using the predetermined amount of liquid and the respective predetermined amount of the gas received through a single entrance of the respective cavitation device;
It is not positively claimed that any amount of liquid and/or gas does enter a single entrance of a cavitation device, but rather an amount of liquid and gas positively enters a reaction vessel.
It is unclear whether the cavitation device is inside the reaction vessel, downstream of the reaction vessel, or is equivalent to the reaction vessel itself.
Examiner interprets to mean mixing occurs in the reactor vessel utilizing the cavitation device, and the cavitation device creates cavitation using the predetermined amount of gas and liquid in the reactor vessel that has been mixed by the cavitation device.
d. injecting the respective mixture into a respective process after hydrodynamic cavitation of the respective mixture, where in at least some instances, the respective process includes a downstream cavitation associated with one of the respective cavitation devices that is downstream, and the respective mixture is injected into the single entrance of a corresponding one of the respective cavitation device that is immediately downstream.”
The phrase " in at least some instances " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2111.04 (II) “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
While conditions of “some instances” are unknown, Examiner interprets given there are other instances when this limitation is not required, MPEP 2111.04 applies.
It is unclear whether “the respective cavitation devices that is downstream” are positively recited. Given that step c cavitation devices may be downstream, is this limitation a second set of cavitation devices unique from the ones in step c?
It is unclear whether “the respective cavitation device that is immediately downstream” are unique from “the respective cavitation devices that is downstream”
If the step d (immediately) downstream devices are one or more new pluralities of devices, it would be helpful if they were indicated as such, for example “another, second”, etc.
Claim(s) 24-30 depend(s) on claim 23 and are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the injection assembly is configured to provide no bubbles.”
Claim 1 recites “ii) an injection assembly configured to provide hydrodynamic cavitation”
Cambridge English Dictionary “Cavitation: the forming of gas bubbles in a liquid, caused by changes in pressure”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cavitation
Claim 20 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends
Examiner maintains the interpretation of “configured to provide” as “capable of providing”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0082008 A1, hereinafter Hatten.
Regarding Claim 1, Hatten teaches a system for mixing gases and liquids (“The fluid and oxidizing gas may be mixed to obtain treated fluid”, Abstract) comprising:
i) a reactor vessel (400) including a liquid inlet which receives a predetermined amount of liquid (446 and/or 422), a first location for gas input ( at least 424 and/or 442) where the first location for gas input receives a precise amount of a gas (“424 is filled with a gas mixture at a desired pressure.”, [0052]), the reactor vessel further including a first cavitation device following the first location for gas input (“a hydrodynamic infuser that infuses oxygen and/or ozone received from one or more oxygen and/or ozone generators… venturis may be used to introduce oxygen and/or ozone into the fluid”, [0026]; “Treatment gas may be simultaneously fed under low pressure into a venturi ”, [0054]) for creating cavitation and mixing the gas and liquid to a desired gas concentration (“compressed gas 428 flow, comprising oxygen and/or air, for example, may be forced into chamber Aa 442 at a greater pressure than the equalized pressure in chamber Aa 442 until a desired higher pressure is achieved”, [0055]);
ii) an injection assembly configured to provide hydrodynamic cavitation (“the liquid may be permitted to pass through an initial gas-to-liquid infusion process… sucked through the venturi”, [0033]; “An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]);
iii) said first cavitation device including a first nozzle having first nozzle entrance and a first nozzle exit with a first nozzle neck positioned therebetween (“venturi”, [0033]), said first cavitation device creating cavitation and mixing liquid and gas solely from the first nozzle entrance [0055].
While gas inputs 424 and/or 442 may be considered in isolation as unique gas input locations to a single EMTM subsystem within the larger reaction vessel 400, they feed into the same downstream cavitation device, and thus Examiner interprets that Hatten does not positively disclose all limitations within one embodiment.
However, regarding duplicate gas inputs and their associated downstream structures, an embodiment of Hatten teaches duplication of parts: “A plurality of EMTMs may be fitted to an existing reactor manifold via either one or two mechanically tapped points of varying sizes. The EMTM can be fitted back to back in modular way so to increase the infusion treatment process within a shorter time period and based on calculations of pre-existing contaminates, daily liquid flow (volume), liquid temperature and inline liquid pressure.” [0039].
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use at least the Hatten embodiment with multiple unique modules for combined gas input and respective cavitation based on design needs related to system pressure, contaminant, temperature. With multiple gas inputs for introducing gas solely from their respective entrances and including their respective cavitation devices incorporated in each EMTM, the Hatten system would “increase the infusion treatment process within a shorter time period and based on calculations of pre-existing contaminates” (Hatten [0039]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Hatten teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. While Hatten is silent to the quantitative value of the pressurization, Hatten teaches “flow of liquid may be derived from a pressurized system and may therefore have a pressure that is greater than atmospheric pressure”, [0052]; “The MSOR may comprise a pressurized ozonized ultrasonic irradiation oxidation and precipitation process that uses one or more of hydrodynamic mixing, ozone, oxygen for advanced oxidation and acoustic cavitation and” [0030]; “Liquid equalization may occur in an oxygen and/or air pressurized batch reactor tank”, [0034]; and “excess pressurized atmosphere of chamber A 424 into chamber Aa 442 until a specified volume of treatment gas and/or specified volume and pressure of compressed gas has been delivered” [0054], indication pressurization above atmospheric pressure is possible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, that the pressurized system of Hatten, including a pressurized reaction vessel, would be capable of at least maintaining the pressure of incoming liquid [0052].
Regarding Claim 5, While Hatten does not positively disclose all limitations within one embodiment, Hatten teaches “The EMTM may be a pneumatic/vacuum operated alternating multistage gas infusion to unfiltered liquid particle saturation device” [0037].
Another embodiment of Hatten provides motivation for the reactor vessel as a serially connected, concatenated reactor:
“a treatment gas may react relatively slowly and/or hydrodynamic, ultrasonic and/or chemical processes may require a longer timeframe than allowed by the flow rate of the fluid to be treated. Some embodiments can effectively increase the length of the treatment zone by concatenation.” [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to arrange the alternating multistage device in a concatenated manner to “effectively increase the length of the treatment zone by concatenation” (Hatten [0060]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hatten teaches the reactor vessel is a downflow reactor (Fig. 4; Repeated cycle of Stages 1-4 of [0052-0057] add gas, mix, and subject to cavitation),
Regarding Claim 7, Hatten teaches the reactor vessel is an inline reactor “An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hatten teaches the injection assembly has an inlet diameter, an exit diameter and a neck diameter which is less than the inlet diameter (“An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hatten teaches an entrainment collar (“The infusion device 404 may be coupled to the pipe by one or more mechanically taps 406, 408. The taps 406, 408 may be sized as appropriate for the application”, [0051).
Regarding Claim 12, Hatten teaches each cavitation device includes an orifice (“An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hatten teaches each cavitation device includes an entrainment collar (406 and/or 408).
Regarding Claim 15, Hatten teaches each cavitation devices is configured to provide hydrodynamic cavitation (“venturi”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 18, Devices capable of cavitation are capable of hydroxyl radical production.
While Hatten does not positively disclose configuration for hydroxyl radical generation in one embodiment, an embodiment of Hatten teaches the injection assembly is configured to form hydroxyl radicals (“ultrasonic acoustic cavitation and/or electro-oxidation may be introduced for an improved saturation effect by causing momentary creation of vacuum "tears" or cavities… to produce millions of microscopic jets of liquid which may gently treat materials in a closed loop system”, [0031]; “ The thermochemical reaction caused by millions of microscopic jets of liquid produces many pathways including highly reactive hydroxyl radicals”, [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include acoustic cavitation in addition to the Hatten system, to add the combined improvements of generating highly reactive radical (Hatten [0035]) as well as improving saturation effect (Hatten [0033]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hatten is capable of the non-bubble generation since it is a function of operation. The device is capable of no bubble generation since cavitation is based on
flow rate.
Regarding Claim 31, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Hatten supports but is silent to the injection assembly configured to provide hydrodynamic cavitation includes a third cavitation device (“[0039] A plurality of EMTMs may be fitted to an existing reactor manifold via either one or two mechanically tapped points of varying sizes”, [0039])
and provides motivation: (“By concatenating multiple ozone treatment stages, the cumulative production of ozone or other gas may be better matched to the flow of fluid to be treated”, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use an appropriate amount of cavitation devices “matched to the flow of fluid to be treated” (Hatten [0060]).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten as applied to the claims above, in view of (Moholkar, V.S. and Pandit, A. B. Modeling of hydrodynamic cavitation reactors: a unified approach. Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6295–6302), hereinafter Moholkar.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Hatten is silent to the injection assembly includes an orifice plate for creating cavitation in the flow.
However, Moholkar teaches an orifice plate as a known alternative to a venturi tube, both applicable geometries for hydrodynamic cavitation reactors (Abstract).
Moholkar is analogous because Moholkar is in the field of hydrodynamic cavitation reactors (Moholkar Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the venturi of Hatten with an orifice plate in systems where higher cavitation intensity is required (“the cavitation intensity produced in an orifice flow is of much higher magnitude than that in a venturi flow”, Moholkar Conclusion ¶1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Hatten is silent to an orifice plate.
However, Moholkar teaches an orifice plate as a known alternative to a venturi tube, both applicable geometries for hydrodynamic cavitation reactors (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to substitute the venturi of Hatten with an orifice plate in systems where higher cavitation intensity is required (“the cavitation intensity produced in an orifice flow is of much higher magnitude than that in a venturi flow”, Moholkar Conclusion ¶1).
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten as applied to the claims above in view of US 20150313435 A1, hereinafter Citsay.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Hatten teaches a shearing nozzle (434) but is silent to nozzle diameters.
However, Citsay teaches venturi nozzles are mechanical nanobubble generators that utilize shearing forces “ mechanical nanobubble generators (e.g., air infiltration sieves, venturi nozzles, swirl nozzles). These nanobubble generators can generate nanobubbles through shear forces without application of electrical energy.” [0042].
Venturi structures have entrance and exit diameters larger than the diameter of the neck.
Citsay is analogous because Citsay addresses the problem of generating nanobubbles through shear forces without application of electrical energy (Citsay [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the shearing venturi nozzles of Citsay for the shearing nozzles of Hatten, In doing so, venturi nozzles would also provide additional cavitation through nanobubble generation (Citsay [0042]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Hatten teaches “the reactive production of minute bubble size saturated liquid flow” [0034], but is silent on whether “minute” bubbles are nano-sized.
However, Citsay teaches venturi nozzles are mechanical nanobubble generators that utilize shearing forces “ mechanical nanobubble generators (e.g., air infiltration sieves, venturi nozzles, swirl nozzles). These nanobubble generators can generate nanobubbles through shear forces without application of electrical energy.” [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the shearing venturi nozzles of Citsay for the shearing nozzles of Hatten, In doing so, venturi nozzles would also provide additional cavitation through minute bubbles, specifically nanobubble generation (Citsay [0042]).
Claims 23, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten in view of Citsay.
Regarding Claim 23, Hatten teaches a method for mixing gases and liquids (Abstract) comprising:
a. introducing a predetermined amount of liquid into a reactor vessel (410 introduced to 404 in predetermined amount via 444 and/or 420);
b. introducing a respective predetermined amount of a gas into the reactor vessel in a respective gas input at each of a plurality of different locations ( at least 442 and/or 424);
c. mixing the predetermined amount of liquid and the respective predetermined amount of the gas in the reactor vessel using a cavitation device (“the liquid may be permitted to pass through an initial gas-to-liquid infusion process… sucked through the venturi”, [0033]; “An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]) following each of the plurality of different locationsinline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion to achieve a desired level of mass transfer”, [0033]).
While Hatten does not positively disclose duplication of parts in the above embodiment, an embodiment of Hatten also teaches “A plurality of EMTMs may be fitted to an existing reactor manifold via either one or two mechanically tapped points of varying sizes. The EMTM can be fitted back to back in modular way so to increase the infusion treatment process within a shorter time period and based on calculations of pre-existing contaminates, daily liquid flow (volume), liquid temperature and inline liquid pressure.” [0039].
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) states “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the Hatten embodiment with multiple gas inputs and their respective cavitation devices based on design needs related to system pressure, contaminant, temperature. Doing so would “increase the infusion treatment process within a shorter time period and based on calculations of pre-existing contaminates” (Hatten [0039]).
Modified Hatten teaches the majority of step d:
injecting the respective mixture into a respective process (“The EMTM may be a pneumatic/vacuum operated alternating multistage gas infusion to unfiltered liquid particle saturation device that is automatically controlled, depending on pressure and flow requirements, creating additional reactions”, [0037]), after hydrodynamic cavitation of the respective mixture.
Hatten also teaches a shearing nozzle 434, but is silent to whether this is a cavitation-inducing nozzle.
However, Citsay teaches venturi nozzles are mechanical nanobubble generators that utilize shearing forces “ mechanical nanobubble generators (e.g., air infiltration sieves, venturi nozzles, swirl nozzles). These nanobubble generators can generate nanobubbles through shear forces without application of electrical energy.” [0042].
Venturi nozzles are cavitation devices, and shearing nozzle 434 being a venturi nozzle would mean the respective mixture is injected into the single entrance of a corresponding one of the respective cavitation device that is immediately downstream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the shearing venturi nozzles of Citsay for the shearing nozzles of Hatten, In doing so, venturi nozzles would also provide additional cavitation through nanobubble generation (Citsay [0042]).
Regarding Claim 27, Hatten teaches step c. includes inducing hydrodynamic cavitation (“An inline venturi may allow for initial gas-to-liquid infusion”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 29, an embodiment of Hatten teaches forming hydroxyl radicals (“ultrasonic acoustic cavitation and/or electro-oxidation may be introduced for an improved saturation effect by causing momentary creation of vacuum "tears" or cavities… to produce millions of microscopic jets of liquid which may gently treat materials in a closed loop system”, [0031]; “ The thermochemical reaction caused by millions of microscopic jets of liquid produces many pathways including highly reactive hydroxyl radicals”, [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include acoustic cavitation in addition to the Hatten system, to add the combined improvements of generating highly reactive radical (Hatten [0035]) as well as improving saturation effect (Hatten [0033]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten in view of Citsay, as applied to the claims above, further in view of Pooja Thanekar and Parag Gogate. Fluids 2018, 3, 98; doi:10.3390/fluids3040098, hereinafter Thanekar
Regarding Claim 24, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
While Hatten is silent to the quantitative value of the pressurization, Hatten teaches “flow of liquid may be derived from a pressurized system and may therefore have a pressure that is greater than atmospheric pressure”, [0052]; “The MSOR may comprise a pressurized ozonized ultrasonic irradiation oxidation and precipitation process that uses one or more of hydrodynamic mixing, ozone, oxygen for advanced oxidation and acoustic cavitation and” [0030]; “Liquid equalization may occur in an oxygen and/or air pressurized batch reactor tank”, [0034]; and “excess pressurized atmosphere of chamber A 424 into chamber Aa 442 until a specified volume of treatment gas and/or specified volume and pressure of compressed gas has been delivered” [0054]
However, Thanekar teaches “The venturi configuration can be used in milder process (typically pressure requirements between 15 and 20 bar” (p. 5 ¶1).
15 bar = 14.8 atm.
Thanekar is analogous because Thanekar is in the field of application of hydrodynamic cavitation reactors for treatment of wastewater (Thanekar Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to utilize the venturi configuration in the pressurized system of Hatten for milder processes at the typical pressure requirement of Thanekar. In doing so, the system would predictably result in successful hydrodynamic cavitation, particularly when applied to microorganism disinfection (“in the field of disinfection from harmful microorganisms, it was reported that Venturi-type reactors outperform orifice plates”, Thanekar p 5 ¶1).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten in view of Citsay, as applied to the claims above, further in view of K. Yasui et al. Ultrasonics- Sonochemistry 48, (2018) 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.05.038, hereinafter Yasuo.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Hatten supports capacity for but is silent to forming a supersaturated solution:
[0055]: “ When the desired higher pressure is achieved, typically using a compressed gas 428 flow, compressed gas 428 flow stops actuated valve 448 is opened. Chamber Aa 442 is evacuated and purged of saturated liquid. Said saturated liquid under pressure is forced into hydrodynamic mixing chamber ” The system has a capacity for pressurized mixing and injection of compressed gas to the desired pressure.
However, Yasuo motivates forming a supersaturated solution for cavitation:
“Bulk nanobubbles (ultrafine bubbles) are often produced using hydrodynamic cavitation by using Venturi-tube, swirling flow, injection of pressurized water containing gas, etc” (p. 1 Col 1 ¶1)
“bulk nanobubbles may act as cavitation nuclei.” (p.1 Col 2 ¶3)
“Dissolution of a bulk nanobubble is stopped if the liquid surrounding a nanobubble is sufficiently supersaturated with gas” (p. 3 Col 2 ¶1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to try sustaining more cavitation nuclei by supersaturating the solution of Hatten, as motivated by Yasui (Yasui p. 3 Col 2 ¶1). Doing so would predictably result in more opportunities for cavitation inception.
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten as applied to the claims above, in view of Jablonská et al. Measurement Science Review, 16, (2016), no. 4, 197-204. DOI: 10.1515/msr-2016-0024, hereinafter Jablonská.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Hatten is silent to velocities.
However, Jablonská teaches the first and second nozzles are each configured so that a fluid flow velocity of V1 through the nozzle entrance results in a fluid flow velocity of V2 exiting the nozzle neck, where a ratio of V1:V2 is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0.
Jablonská also provides motivation for these values:
“Measurements were performed at various flow rates in the range 2.62·10-3 m3/s – 4.6·10-3 m3/s (corresponding to the frequency range between 20 Hz and 38 Hz of the frequency inverter to control the pump) at which cavitation formed. The maximum flow rate reached 4.36·10-3 m3/s; at this flow rate, the velocity of the … inlet … 7.3 m/s and the velocity at the narrowest point of the nozzle … was 24.5 m/s.” (p 2 Col 2 ¶3).
Jablonská is analogous because Jablonská addresses investigation of cavitation in a convergent - divergent nozzle (Jablonská Title)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to optimize the nozzle configuration for the desired level of relative velocity ratio results, such as those taught in Jablonská, to optimize the performance of cavitation. Doing so would allow the device to reach maximum flow rates (Jablonská p 2 Col 2 ¶3).
Claims 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatten as applied to the claims above, in view of Jagmit Singh et al. Effect of nozzle geometry on critical subcritical flow transitions hereinafter Singh, further in view of Li et al. Study of Venturi tube geometry on the hydrodynamic cavitation for the generation of microbubbles, hereinafter Li
Regarding Claim 33, modified Hatten discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. Hatten is silent to Venturi geometry.
However, Singh teaches “From these optimal geometries, the most optimum was the ASTAR Nozzle 1, it had the highest critical pressure ratio and lowest pressure drop” (p12 ¶1)
ASTAR Geometry:
a distance from the nozzle entrance to the nozzle neck of A (Table 1 convergent length = 1.15 in),
a distance from the nozzle exit to the nozzle neck of B (Table 1 divergent length = 2.22 in)
and a length over the nozzle of C (summation of Table 1 values = 3.37 in),
a ratio of A:B is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 (1.15: 2.22 = 0.52).
Singh is silent to the diameter ratios of the venturi.
However, Li teaches:
a diameter at the nozzle entrance of D1 (Table 1 Inlet Diameter ),
a diameter at the nozzle exit of D2 (Table 1 Inlet Diameter ),
a diameter at the nozzle neck of D3 (Table 1 Throat Diameter ),
where a ratio of D1:D2 is in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 (equivalent, = 1), a ratio of D1:D3 is in the range of 3 to 5 (Table 1 Diameter ratio D/d range from 2-6).
Li also provides motivation for a D1:D3 ratio of 3 to 5, specifically:
Fig. 6 shows that when all other parameters are held equal, D/d of 4.5 consistently meets or exceeds the expected bubble volume percentage in water as a function of cavitation loss.
Singh is analogous because Singh teaches optimal length ratios for Venturi devices to improve choked flow by optimizing critical pressure ratios.
Li is analogous because Li teaches optimal diameter ratios for cavitation using Venturi devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the teachings of Singh and Li to optimize the Venturi devices of Hatten to attain high critical pressure ratios (Singh p 12 ¶1) and improve cavitation efficiency (Li Conclusion).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140048466 A1 teaches degradation/disinfection using a combination of hydrodynamic cavitation, acoustic cavitation, ozone injection and electrolysis
US 20130319939 A1 teaches oxidized water treatment using a cavitation reactor
US-5087377-A teaches high pressure oxygen-saturated water-treatment using a venturi
US-20050279713-A1 teaches supersaturation of gases in liquids with a venturi-type entrainment collar.
H. Shi et al./Chemical Engineering Science 207 (2019) 672–687. Teaches a required cavitation intensity can be controlled by the convergent angle of the cavitating Venturi tube taking into account the effect of energy consumption
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773