DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose, as recited in MPEP §609: “In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56."
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 25 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10-11 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.
The structure of claim 10 is unclear. Claim 10 recites “wherein a total number of orifices in the predetermined number of orifices in a distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates is determined by the flow rate and pressure drop of the system and the geometry of the one or more corresponding chambers of the one or more chambers”, but the total number of orifices in the predetermined number of orifices in a distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates is unclear because how the number is determined is unclear. The claim says that the number is determined by the flow rate, pressure drop, and geometry, but claim does not make clear which numbers are within the scope of the claim.
The structure of claim 11 is unclear. Claim 11 recites “wherein location of the one or more zones of each distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates having the predetermined number of orifices based on a spacing between orifices and the location of a wall of”, but the location is unclear because how the location is determined is unclear. The claim says that the location is determined by the spacing and location of a wall, but claim does not make clear which locations are within the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohumil FR2293236 published 2 Jul. 1976 as translated by EPO (hereafter Bohumil)
Regarding claim 1, Bohumil teaches a low head oxygenator system comprising:
one or more chambers (15, 17), each of the one or more chambers having an open top (as shown in Fig 1);
one or more distribution plates (2, 2’), each distribution plate disposed over the open top of one or more corresponding chambers of the one or more chambers, each of the one or more distribution plates having a predetermined number of orifices (perforations) distributed within one or more zones of the respective distribution plate and no orifices in at least one remaining zone of the respective distribution plate (as labeled below);
a container (11), disposed on top of the one or more distribution plates, configured to allow a liquid contained in the container to flow through the orifices of the one or more distribution plates into the one or more chambers;
a gas input (20, 7) into each of the one or more chambers, the gas input configured to receive gas into the respective chamber; and
a gas output (5, 8) from each of the one or more chambers, the gas output configured to release the gas out of the respective chamber, wherein
the liquid flows through the predetermined number of orifices to create jets (14, 16), and
the jets enter a liquid (17, 15) held within each of the one or more chambers at one or more regions disposed directly below the one or more zones of the one or more distribution plates having the orifices, to create one or more circulation cells of bubbles.
[AltContent: textbox (Remaining zone)][AltContent: textbox (Zone)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Remaining zone)]
[AltContent: textbox (Zone)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein the one or more zones having the predetermined number of orifices of each distribution plate are located near at least one wall (1) of the one or more corresponding chambers (as shown in Fig 1 and labeled above).
Regarding claim 4, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches at least one chamber of the one or more chambers further comprising at least one substantially horizontal baffle (labelled below), fully submerged in the liquid held within the respective chamber and attached to at least one wall (labelled below) of the respective chamber, the at least one substantially horizontal baffle being configured to direct the bubbles in the one or more circulation cells from regions of the liquid held in the respective chamber and exposed to the jets towards regions of the liquid held in the respective chamber and not exposed to the jets (as shown in Fig 2, where the bubbles would be directed by the baffle when the bubbles hit the baffle in accordance with MPEP §§ 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g)).
[AltContent: textbox (Horizontal baffle)]
[AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein each of the one or more chambers further comprises a discharge slot (labeled below), located at a bottom of the respective chamber, the discharge slot being configured to maintain a spray fall height by discharging the liquid held in the respective chamber.
[AltContent: textbox (Discharge slot)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Discharge slot)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein the container is circular and each of the one or more chambers located below the container has a shape of a sector of the container (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein a total number of orifices in the predetem1ined number of orifices in a distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates is based on a geometry of one or more corresponding chambers of the one or more chambers (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein location of the one or more zones of each distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates having the predetermined number of orifices is based on a geometry of one or more corresponding chambers of the one or more chambers (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bohumil further teaches wherein the orifices are arranged uniformly in one or more rows within the one or more zones of each distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates (as shown in Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohumil as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Bohumil teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Bohumil does not teach wherein the container is rectangular and each of the one or more chambers located below the container has a shape of a square or rectangular portion of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular container (Fig 1) of Bohumil to be rectangular as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP §2144.04 IV B) and in order to accommodate as rectangular space in the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28 are allowed.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art is Bohumil which teaches at least one substantially vertical baffle (10). Bohumil does not teach the remaining zone as claimed and does not teach the vertical baffle underneath the center zones.
Claims 22-24 depend upon claim 21.
Regarding claim 25, the closest prior art is Gargas US 5,632,887 which teaches at least one substantially vertical baffle (641, 642) to separate downward and upward flow. Gargas does not teach the baffles fully submerged or where the system has plates with jets in the chamber.
Claims 26-28 depend upon claim 25.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art is Bohumil which teaches at least one substantially vertical baffle (10). Bohumil does not teach the remaining zone as claimed and does not teach the vertical baffle underneath the center zones.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art is Gargas US 5,632,887 which teaches at least one substantially vertical baffle (641, 642) to separate downward and upward flow. Gargas does not teach the baffles fully submerged or where the system has plates with jets in the chamber.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art is Gargas US 5,632,887which teaches at least one substantially vertical baffle (641, 642) to separate downward and upward flow. Gargas does not teach the baffles fully submerged or where the system has plates with jets in the chamber.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 26 Jul. 2024:
Applicant argues that claims 21 and 25, along with dependent claims 22-24 and 26-28, are allowable.
Examiner agrees and claims 21-28 are indicated allowable herein.
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections of claims 10 and 11 are overcome by amendment.
Examiner disagrees.
The structure of claim 10 is unclear. Claim 10 recites “wherein a total number of orifices in the predetermined number of orifices in a distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates is determined by the flow rate and pressure drop of the system and the geometry of the one or more corresponding chambers of the one or more chambers”, but the total number of orifices in the predetermined number of orifices in a distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates is unclear because how the number is determined is unclear. The claim says that the number is determined by the flow rate, pressure drop, and geometry, but claim does not make clear which numbers are within the scope of the claim.
The structure of claim 11 is unclear. Claim 11 recites “wherein location of the one or more zones of each distribution plate of the one or more distribution plates having the predetermined number of orifices based on a spacing between orifices and the location of a wall of”, but the location is unclear because how the location is determined is unclear. The claim says that the location is determined by the spacing and location of a wall, but claim does not make clear which locations are within the scope of the claim.
Applicant argues that Bohumil does not attempt to solve the problems identified by Applicant.
In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Further, Bohumil teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 and is fully capable of performing all the functional limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues that Bohumil does not teach the limitation of no orifices in at least one remaining zone.
Examiner disagrees. As shown in the claim 1 rejection above, Bohumil teaches the limitation. Below Examiner has provide alternative interpretations of the Bohumil reference to demonstrate the remaining zone taught by Bohumil.
[AltContent: textbox (Remaining zone)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Zone)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Remaining zone)][AltContent: textbox (Zone)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Michener can be reached on 571-272-1424. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776