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 .
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 32-49 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.
Regarding claim 32, the phrase “the outflow pipe part” in line 10 of the claim lacks antecedent basis. It is taken to be the same as “one or more outflow parts” recited in line 6 of the claim.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, the phrase “the liquid surface” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear whether it should mean any liquid surface or a specific type of surface. For the purposes of this action, the Examiner will consider any liquid surface.
Claims 35-49 are rejected under 112 2nd paragraph by virtue of their dependency toward claim 32.
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.
Claim 32-38, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews et al. US 10,233,096.
Regarding claim 32, Andrews teaches a device (Figure 3) for transport of liquid from a first location to a second location, the device (Figure 3) comprising:
a first pipeline (200) for transport of the liquid from a first location to a second location, the first pipeline (200) comprising:
a first upstream pipe part (206) for intake of liquid from said first location (208); and
one or more outflow parts (at around 232 where the fluid goes from the tube 206 to tube 207) arranged in an upper part of the pipeline (200) for passing the liquid out of the first pipeline (the liquid arrows go up then down); and
means (240, column 9 line 2) arranged in the upstream pipe part (206) and provided for the supply of microbubbles to the pipe part (206);
wherein the length of the upstream pipe part (206) and position of the outflow pipe part (232) are arranged so that the liquid is taken up in the first pipeline from a first location at a given depth in a liquid volume, and that the liquid discharges from the outflow pipe part (232) at a second location which is vertically higher in liquid volume than the first location.
Regarding claim 33 and 34, Andrews teaches wherein the upper part of the first pipeline is in the form of a dome (chamber 220) which establishes a space above the liquid surface (column 9 lines 18-30) and is arranged such that the upper part of the dome (chamber 220) is above the liquid surface (where arrow 132 is pointing), while the lower part of the dome and the outflow pipe part (232) are below the liquid surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
163
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
211
289
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inset of Andrews Figures 1 and 3, respectively, 120 is the gas headspace of the dome chamber (220) above the water line at upper end 132. The outflow 232 is below this end.
Regarding claim 35, Andrews teaches the means (242, column 9 line 3) for the supply of microbubbles is an ejector which is driven by a supply of the liquid. Water can be drawn up the fluid upflow tube 206 by the macro-bubble airlift 242 (column 9 lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 36, a gas or air is supplied in an upper part of the dome (230) as shown in the inset above.
Regarding claim 37, the gas is oxygen (air) which is supplied via a second pipeline 242 (column 9 line 3).
Regarding claim 38, oxygen (via air) is supplied to the port 242 and that parts of the air are retrieved via a third pipeline that extends from the top of the dome chamber 220 (column 9 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 40, the dome is provided with one or more check valves (241)(column 9 line 3).
Regarding claim 41, the outflow pipe part (232) surrounds the upstream pipe part (206) thus is considered a 360-degree sector (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 43, the chamber is a funnel-shaped unit (220 in Figure 3) and is arranged near the liquid surface of the dome (220m, Figure 3). A foaming action in the water are carried to the top of the installation 200, such as into the chamber 220, where they can be transferred to the evacuation tank 223 by a vacuum 225 (column 9 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 44, the dome (220) is closed and an evacuation pipe extending from the tip is provided to the dome to reduce the pressure in the dome (by vacuum, column 9 line 30).
Regarding claim 48, there may be buoyancy elements included (claim 11 lines 29-30 and column 18 line 53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 39, 42, 45, 46, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. US 10,233,096.
Regarding claim 39, air can be supplied to the chamber 220 through pipe 206 but Andrews does not teach a damper in the dome. However, a damper would have been obvious as a routine airflow-control element for regulating air pressure and air supply to the dome headspace, thereby maintaining a desired operating pressure and prevent excess or insufficient air supply.
Regarding claim 42, the means (240) for the supply of microbubbles is angled about 90 degrees in Figure 3. Andrews does not explicitly teach the means is angled in different directions and arranged so that the microbubbles are spread over the entire cross-section of the upstream pipe part. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the orientation of the microbubble entry means in order to direct the bubbles into the pipes. The angle is considered a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the position in order to affect bubble dispersion, mixing, or gas-liquid contact.
Regarding claims 45 and 46, sensors (250 and 254) are provided for measuring and regulating the water levels which flows out of the outflow pipe part (column 10 lines 1-14). Andrews does not explicitly teach the sensors detecting oxygen levels, however installing an oxygen sensor to regulate the oxygen levels would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and provide predictable results.
Regarding claim 49, Andrews does not explicitly teach the buoyancy means is a floating collar with a fixed buoyancy and a number of vertical air-filled pipes where water can be injected to fine-tune the depth. However, buoyancy elements can be included and further include buoyancy means for the liquid flow column. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have an appropriate structure for buoyancy such as a floating collar with insertable air pipes to adjust for buoyancy level.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. US 10,233,096 in view of Jepsen US Patent 3,488,927.
Regarding claim 47, Andrews does not explicitly teach a cyclone connected to the dome or a pipe part. However, cyclone chambers are known in the art for separating gas and liquid (column1 lines 59-70). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a cyclone for further separating gas and liquid. The modification would predictably improve phase separation of the vented mixture before discharge or recirculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights