DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 Nov. 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim 76 limitation “vacuum means for evacuating the volume” is interpreted under 112f with the corresponding structure of a vacuum pump from page 11 line 11 of the specification.
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 68-69, 72-73, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson et al. US 4,085,170 (hereafter Simpson).
Regarding claim 68, Simpson teaches a generator for producing nanobubbles or nanodroplets at ambient conditions (Fig 1; the conditions of the area surrounding the produced nanobubbles/nanodroplets); the generator comprising:
a volume (15) for accommodating a liquid (col 3 line 28);
a source (source of first phase in col 1 line 30 – col 2 line 60; 19 in Fig 1) for supplying a medium to the volume for distributing within the liquid,
wherein the medium is provided to the volume at ambient conditions (col 3 lines 14-33; further where the generator is fully capable of providing the medium at ambient conditions in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g) by operating the source at ambient conditions);
an electrode (28, 29 in Fig 1) for generating an electric field in the proximity of the volume for facilitating the generation of nanobubbles or nanodroplets at ambient conditions, wherein the electrode and the liquid are not in direct electrical contact to avoid electrolysis (col 4 lines 9-24, col 3 lines 37-53).
Regarding claim 69, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68. Simpson further teaches wherein the source comprises a gas source for supplying a gas medium or wherein the source comprises a liquid source for supplying a liquid medium (first phase in col 1 line 30 – col 2 line 60).
Regarding claim 72, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68. Simpson further teaches wherein the generator is fully capable of having at least one magnet with a magnetic flux density in the range of 0.5 kgs2/A to 2 kgs2/A situated in the vicinity of the generator in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g). The at least one magnet is not positively recited because the invention is directed to a generator and the magnet is not recited as a component of the generator.
Regarding claim 73, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68. Simpson further teaches wherein the electrode comprises a cathode and an anode (potential between electrodes, col 2 lines 15-60).
Regarding claim 77, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68. Simpson further teaches wherein at least one environmental parameter of the ambient conditions is the same within the volume of the generator and without.
(where at least one environmental parameter, such as temperature, is
fully capable of being the same within the volume of the generator and without
in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g) by operating the volume at the same temperature as outside the volume, for instance room temperature).
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 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Robinson US 2010/0084272 (hereafter Robinson) and Mellor et al. US 5,403,450 (hereafter Mellor).
Regarding claim 70, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68. Simpson further teaches wherein the electrode is operably connected to a voltage supply (col 4 lines 46-68) wherein the electrode is such that the electrode and the liquid are not in direct electrical contact (col 4 lines 9-24, col 3 lines 37-53).
Simpson does not teach wherein the electrode comprises a foil, and wherein the foil is laminated and the folded being folded in a spiral bound configuration.
Robinson teaches water treatment with bubbles (¶164) with electrodes wherein the electrode comprises a foil (¶18-28), and wherein the foil is laminated (as shown in Figs 1-4). Robinson teaches where the foil electrode is an equivalent of metal rods (¶18-28).
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 electrode rods (28, 29) of Simpson by substituting the foil electrode (¶18-28) of Robinson as an obvious art recognized equivalent (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Mellor teaches a foil electrode where the foil is folded in a spiral bound configuration (col 7 lines 1-23).
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 electrode shape (28, 29) of Simpson by making the electrodes folded in a spiral bound configuration (col 7 lines 1-23) of Mellor as a matter of obvious change in shape (MPEP 2144.04 IV B) and in order to increase the surface area compared to a flat shape.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson as applied to claim 68 above.
Regarding claim 72, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68.
Simpson does not state at least one magnet situated in the vicinity of the generator and wherein the magnet provides a magnetic flux density in the range of 0.5 kgs-2 A-1 and 2kgs-2 A-1.
The claimed invention is directed a generator and the magnet which is provided in the vicinity of the generator is not positively recited.
In addition to the generator of Simpson being fully capable of having a magnet in the vicinity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a magnet in the vicinity of the generator. For instance, it would have been obvious to include a pump in the vicinity of the generator in order to move the liquid and it would have been obvious to power the pump with an electric motor as well known. An electric motor comprises at least one magnet. Further, the magnetic flux density of the magnet would have been fully capable of being 0.5 kgs2/A to 2 kgs2/A.
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Shiue et al. US 2007/0272550 (hereafter Shiue).
Regarding claim 75, Simpson teaches all the limitations of claim 68.
Simpson does not teaches where the electrode is arranged to consist of a series of concentric elements.
Shiue teaches liquid treatment (Fig 1) where the electrode is arranged to consist of a series of concentric elements in order to create a strong field (¶24).
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 electrode rods (28, 29) of Simpson by substituting the concentric elements (Fig 1) of Shiue in order to create a strong field (¶24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 71, 74, and 76 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 71, the closest prior art is Simpson et al. US 4,085,170 and Graeme GB2424875 published 11 Oct. 2006. Simpson teaches a generator comprising electrodes. Graeme teaches angled electrodes. Graeme does not teach the cascading electrodes as claimed.
Regarding claim 74, the closest prior art is Simpson et al. US 4,085,170 and Shiue et al. US 2007/0272550. Simpson teaches a generator comprising electrodes. Shiue teaches mesh/screen electrodes with the mesh in contact with the liquid. Simpson teaches the electrodes isolated from the liquid.
Regarding claim 76, the closest prior art is Simpson et al. US 4,085,170 and JP 2017-62098. Simpson teaches a generator comprising electrodes. ‘098 teaches freezing nano-bubble containing liquid. The modification would not have been obvious to freeze the nanobubbles/nanodroplets for facilitating storage because Simpson is concerned with industrial electrode nanobubble/nanodroplet formation where the ‘098 reference teaches a device for making ice.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 7 Nov. 2025:
Applicant argues that the specification defines “ambient conditions in paragraph 180 as published (page 26 lines 28-40 as filed).
Examiner disagrees. The specification provides examples of ambient conditions, but does not define the term.
The specification states “In the exemplary embodiment, 'ambient conditions' refers to values of environmental parameters in the immediate surround of the apparatus.” The reference to values of environmental parameters in the immediate surround of the apparatus is a non-limiting example of ambient conditions.
The specification states “For example, ambient conditions may comprise but are not limited to …”. The ambient condition ranges are non-limiting examples of ambient conditions.
Applicant argues that nanobubbles are not an inherent feature of the Simpson disclosure.
Examiner alleges that, rather than nanobubbles being inherent in the prior art, the prior art is fully capable of producing nanobubbles. See MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g).
Conclusion
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 Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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