OFFICE ACTION after RCE
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheet of drawings filed 5 JAN 2026 is approved for entry.
Specification
The abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the subject matter added to claim 1, last two lines.
New claim 18.
New claim 19.
The above subject matter is deemed to lack positive antecedent basis in the specification as originally filed but is deemed to be reasonably supported by the original drawing figures. Any deviation from that which is reasonably supported by the drawing figures will be considered new matter in the next office action.
608.01(o) [R-2] Basis for Claim Terminology in Description
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. No term may be given a meaning repugnant to the usual meaning of the term.
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01. >Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.<
See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications. 76 FR 7166, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011):
B. Correspondence Between Specification and Claims: The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. To meet the definiteness requirement under § 112, ¶2, the exact claim terms are not required to be used in the specification as long as the specification provides the needed guidance on the meaning of the terms (e.g., by using clearly equivalent terms) so that the meaning of the terms is readily discernable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nevertheless, glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. Express definitions of claim terms can eliminate the need for any ‘‘time-consuming and difficult inquiry into indefiniteness.’’ Therefore, applicants are encouraged to use glossaries as a best practice in patent application preparation. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain. For example, a claim with a limitation of ‘‘the clamp means including a clamp body and first and second clamping members, the clamping members being supported by the clamp body’’ was determined to be indefinite because the terms ‘‘first and second clamping members’’ and ‘‘clamp body’’ were found to be vague in light of the specification which showed no ‘‘clamp member’’ structure being ‘‘supported by the clamp body.’ In another example, a claim was directed to a process of treating an aluminum surface with an alkali silicate solution and included a further limitation that the surface has an ‘‘opaque’’ appearance. The specification, meanwhile, associated the use of an alkali silicate with a glazed or porcelainlike finish, which the specification distinguished from an opaque finish. Noting that no claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the appearance of the surface after treatment, and therefore indefinite. (footnotes omitted).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
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 RCE submission filed on 19 AUG 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
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.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter parties review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144 [as in section 19 below]. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
In view of the above guidance, claims 1-8 and new claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORNBOSTEL (US 2748668) in view of SU 1200957 A and ROBBERTS (US 5705060).
HORNBOSTEL discloses in the embodiment of FIGURES 5-6 a tank/vortex generator apparatus comprising a fluid tank 10’ defined by a sidewall 51 and a bottom wall 19’ and comprising a first fluid inlet port 55; a fluid outlet port 21’ formed in the bottom wall 9’; wherein the fluid outlet port 21’ is spaced from the sidewall 51 and is connected to the sidewall 51 via the bottom wall 19’; a first fluid intake duct 14’ in fluid communication with the first fluid inlet port 55; wherein the first fluid intake duct 14’ is provided substantially on a tangent to the first sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall 51 and aligned to deliver a first fluid to an internal surface of the first sidewall segment seen in Figure 6; and a fluid outlet duct arranged in flow communication with the fluid outlet port wherein the fluid outlet duct comprising a divergent section 22’; and the fluid outlet port 21’ is an opening in the bottom wall 19’ and the divergent section 22’ of the fluid outlet duct extends from a perimeter of the opening at 21’ - Figure 5; .
wherein the first fluid intake duct 14’ is interfaced with an outer surface of the fluid tank 10’ to communicate the first fluid along the outer surface - Figure 6;
wherein the fluid outlet duct comprises a column section 34’ in series with the divergent section 22’, and the column section 34’ has an internal cross-sectional area which is larger than the internal cross-sectional area of the fluid outlet port 21’ - Figure 5;
wherein the fluid outlet duct comprises a convergent section 32’ in series with the column section 34’ - Figure 5;
wherein the sidewall of the fluid tank 10’ defines a spiral centered on the fluid outlet port 21’ - Figure 6;
wherein an upstream end opening of the divergent section 22’ has a same cross-sectional area as the opening of the fluid outlet port 21’ - Figure 5.
HORNBOSTEL does not disclose the first fluid inlet port comprising a curved flow channel defined between a first sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall and a second sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall.
SU 1200957 A discloses as seen below an impeller-free vortex generator apparatus in the Figure comprising: a fluid tank/vortex generator defined by a sidewall 1 and a bottom wall 3 (as noted in said interview summary) and comprising: a first fluid inlet port comprising a curved flow channel 2 defined between a first outer sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall and a second sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall as seen in Figure 1; a fluid outlet port 6 formed in the bottom wall 3; the fluid outlet port 6 being spaced from the sidewall 1 is connected to the sidewall via the bottom wall per said Figure; a first fluid intake duct 4 or 5 in fluid communication with the first fluid inlet port; wherein the first fluid intake duct 4 is provided substantially on a tangent to the first sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall and aligned to deliver a first fluid to an internal surface of the first sidewall segment - Figure 1; wherein the first fluid intake duct 4 is interfaced with an outer surface of the fluid tank to communicate the first fluid along the radially outer surface; and wherein the sidewall defines a spiral centered on the fluid outlet port 6 as denoted by the flow arrows in Figure 1 - see last line of the translation before the “Claims” section.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, since there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fluid tank in HORNBOSTEL with a curved flow channel defined between a first sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall and a second sidewall segment of the fluid tank sidewall as disclosed by SU ‘957 for the purposes of providing a premixing cavity in the curved flow channel and for configuring said curved flow channel such that incoming flow to the vortex generator is directed in a circumferential direction around the inner surface of the sidewall of the vortex generator and discharged through outlet (6) whereby under pressure of centrifugal force, the inlet flow bends around the inner surface of the chamber circumferentially and flows again at the exit of cavity (2), but on the other side to produce a zone of reduced pressure in the zone, into which a second component can flow, which is then captured on both sides by the flows and carried to the mixing chamber (3) when at the exit from cavity (2), the flows are additionally displaced via turbulence resulting from the disruption of the flow to mix in the chamber 3, where they move in a spiral path from the periphery to the center in the vortex flow and merge through the outlet (6) - per the machine translation.
HORNBOSTEL also does not disclose a second fluid inlet port that is located on an opposite side of the fluid tank relative to the fluid outlet port and the fluid outlet duct; wherein the distance between the second fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port is smaller than the distance between the fluid outlet port and a duct exit of the fluid outlet duct; wherein the second fluid inlet port, the fluid outlet port and the duct exit are arranged concentrically; and wherein the column section 34’ of the fluid outlet duct has a length which is greater than the distance between the second fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port 21’.
ROBBERTS discloses a vortex generator 1, 34 that is partially submerged in a fluid contained within a reservoir; the vortex generator including a fluid tank 6 including a first tangential fluid inlet 7 and a second fluid inlet 8; wherein an end of the inlet 8 is located outside of the fluid within the reservoir and is connected to the atmosphere:
When the vessel 1 is to be used to oxygenate water, the water is delivered under pressure through the inlet conduit 7. Because the water flows into the inlet chamber tangentially, the water is caused to rotate and flow through the tubular part 3 with tubular motion. As the water flows past the flared part 9 of the tubular part 3, the throughflow area decreases and the flow rate of the water increases. The throughflow area increases markedly downstream of the flared part 9, causing a lower pressure to be generated locally in the region beneath the mouth or outlet orifice of the second tube 8. When the tube 8 communicates with air under atmospheric pressure, air will thus be sucked into the tubular part 3. It has been also been observed that a strong turbulent flow occurs in the central part of the junction part 5, at the same time as a thin layer of water flows helically around the tube wall. It should be noted that it is the water from the surface of the generated vortex 10 that is mixed in the turbulent region with the air delivered through the tube 8. - per col. 2, lines 17-28 and lines 37-42.
Thus ROBBERTS discloses a second fluid inlet port 8 that is located on an opposite side of the fluid tank 6 relative to the fluid outlet port (above 3 in Figure 1) and the fluid outlet duct 2; wherein the distance between the second fluid inlet port 8 and the fluid outlet port is smaller than the distance between the fluid outlet port and a duct exit of the fluid outlet duct 2 as seen in Figure 1; wherein the second fluid inlet port 8, the fluid outlet port and the duct exit (proximate 4) are arranged concentrically - Figure 1. Providing HORNBOSTEL with such a second fluid inlet port as taught by ROBBERTS would (a) provide the distance between the second fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port 21’ to be smaller than the distance between the fluid outlet port 21’ and a duct exit 37’ of the fluid outlet duct as derived from Figure 5 of HORNBOSTEL; (b) the second fluid inlet port, the fluid outlet port 21’ and the duct exit 37’ would be arranged concentrically; and (c) the column section 34’ of the fluid outlet duct would possess a length which is greater than the distance between the second fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port 21’ - Figure 5.
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided HORNBOSTEL with a second fluid inlet port and to locate an end of the second fluid intake duct outside the reservoir and connected to (in fluid communication with) the atmosphere as taught by ROBBERTS for the purpose of enabling an oxygen-containing gas, such as air, oxygen gas or ozone to be introduced into the vortex generator via a tube/intake duct through which an oxygen-containing gas, such as air, oxygen gas or ozone is introduced to thereby oxygenate the water introduced into the vortex generator from the first fluid inlet (col. 1, lines 48-57).
Regarding the recitation of “impeller free” in the preamble of claim 1, the element within the apparatus in HORNBOSTEL is described as a “pump rotor 53”, so the HORNBOSTEL device can be deemed “impeller-free” since 53 is not described as an “impeller”. Moreover, the elimination of an element, such as the pump rotor in HORNBOSTEL, is well within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art: Ex parte Wu , 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and
axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient). Accordingly, to eliminate the pump rotor components within the device of HORNBOSTEL to form a static vortex generator to minimize complexity to thereby simplify the structure with fewer components, to improve the cost-efficiency of production of the vortex generator apparatus, to curtail maintenance work and repair for servicing of a pump rotor to thereby lower operational cost of the vortex generator, and to form an apparatus that is less prone to fouling and wear than a vortex generator with a pump rotor. Thus, for one skilled in the art to eliminate the pump rotor in the vortex generator of HORNBOSTEL for these desirable reasons is well within the realm of obviousness to a PHOSITA.
Regarding new claim 19, the opening of the fluid outlet port 21’ has a first internal cross-sectional area smaller than a second internal cross-sectional area of the fluid tank 51 as seen in Figure 5. Moreover, a downstream end of the divergent section 22’ may possess a third internal cross-sectional area that is smaller than the second internal cross-sectional area of the fluid tank 51 per col. 3, lines 64-75 and col. 6, lines 66-75 since the slanted walls of the diverging section 22’ may not be as divergent as shown in Figures 1 and 5 to an extent where these walls are substantially vertical, thus permitting said third internal cross sectional area to be smaller than the second internal cross-sectional area of the fluid tank 51 via less divergent walls as contemplated by the four corners of HORNBOSTEL, i.e., the width of the divergent wall 22’ at the downstream end 23’ having a width smaller than the width of 51 situated on the wall 19’ via a smaller diverging angle of the wall 22’.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORNBOSTEL (US 2748668) in view of SU 1200957 A and ROBBERTS (US 5705060) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of STAAF (US 4092013).
Modified HORNBOSTEL does not disclose the first fluid intake duct having a divergent section. STAAF discloses a vortex generator 10 having a first fluid intake duct 19 with a divergent section as seen in Fig. 9.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the intake duct of the vortex generator of modified HORNBOSTEL with a divergent section as taught by STAAF to control the flow rate of the substances entering the vortex generator (such as to lower the flow rate/velocity via said divergent section).
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORNBOSTEL (US 2748668) in view of SU 1200957 A and ROBBERTS (US 5705060) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of WAGNER et al. (US 3794299).
Modified HORNBOSTEL does not disclose the valve, pump, control system, or particle reservoir.
WAGNER et al. discloses a vortex generator 10 with inlets 24 and 34; control valves 56, 62, 86, 88, 100; adjustable (i.e., controlled) metering pumps 58, 64, 90, 92, or 102; a control system 70 or 120, a particle reservoir 50 that is in flow communication and thereby feeds the inlet 34.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the vortex generator of modified HORNBOSTEL with one or more valves, pumps, a control system, and particle reservoir for the purpose of controlling the flow of substances fed into the vortex generator from the particle reservoir and through the inlets thereof.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORNBOSTEL (US 2748668) in view of SU 1200957 A and ROBBERTS (US 5705060) and WAGNER et al. as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of CH 545649 A.
Modified HORNBOSTEL does not disclose the second end of the second fluid intake duct being located outside the first fluid of the reservoir and being connected to the atmosphere or the vortex generator being submerged in a fluid within a fluid reservoir.
ROBBERTS discloses a vortex generator 1, 34 that is partially submerged in a fluid contained within a reservoir; the vortex generator including a first fluid inlet 7; and a second fluid inlet 8 wherein an end of the inlet 8 is located outside of the fluid within the reservoir and is connected to the atmosphere:
When the vessel 1 is to be used to oxygenate water, the water is delivered under pressure through the inlet conduit 7. Because the water flows into the inlet chamber tangentially, the water is caused to rotate and flow through the tubular part 3 with tubular motion. As the water flows past the flared part 9 of the tubular part 3, the throughflow area decreases and the flow rate of the water increases. The throughflow area increases markedly downstream of the flared part 9, causing a lower pressure to be generated locally in the region beneath the mouth or outlet orifice of the second tube 8. When the tube 8 communicates with air under atmospheric pressure, air will thus be sucked into the tubular part 3. It has been also been observed that a strong turbulent flow occurs in the central part of the junction part 5, at the same time as a thin layer of water flows helically around the tube wall. It should be noted that it is the water from the surface of the generated vortex 10 that is mixed in the turbulent region with the air delivered through the tube 8. - per col. 2, lines 17-28 and lines 37-42.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have located an end of the second fluid intake duct outside the reservoir and connected to (in fluid communication with) the atmosphere in modified HORNBOSTEL as taught by ROBBERTS for the purpose of enabling an oxygen-containing gas, such as air, oxygen gas or ozone to be introduced into the vortex generator via a tube/intake duct through which an oxygen-containing gas, such as air, oxygen gas or ozone is introduced to thereby oxygenate the water introduced into the vortex generator from the first fluid inlet (col. 1, lines 48-57).
CH 545649 A discloses a vortex generator 53 or 72 (Figures 10-11) wholly submerged within a fluid contained in fluid reservoir 51 or 61; the outlet duct 55 or 73 of the vortex generator is submerged within the fluid; a second fluid intake duct 66, 68 with a portion 68 connected to the second fluid inlet port 70 and a second end 66 of the fluid intake duct is located outside the fluid within the fluid reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have placed the vortex generator of modified HORNBOSTEL in a submerged location in a fluid within a fluid reservoir for the purpose of blending the fluids within said reservoir.
Allowable Subject Matter
None.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments filed with the RCE. In the remarks filed with the RCE, Applicant does question how the patent to HORNBOSTEL would be used (if at all). For an answer, please see sections (17) - (20) above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
27 AUG 2026
Prosecution Insights