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 .
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.
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(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayela et al (US 20190276316; hereinafter Ayela).
As regarding claim 1, Ayela discloses the claimed invention for a method for degassing a fluid (abstract) comprising: supplying, at an inlet (fig. 1) of a reactor, a fluid at least partly in liquid form and comprising at least one dissolved gas; then causing the fluid to flow through the reactor, the reactor comprising at least one microfluidic conduit (fig. 1) comprising a first portion (6), a second portion (2) and a third portion (3), the second portion being disposed between the first portion and the third portion, the second portion having a reduced hydraulic diameter relative to the first portion and the third portion along a direction of main flow of the fluid through the microfluidic conduit, the fluid being at least partly in liquid form while flowing through the first portion, the second portion and the third portion, the reduced hydraulic diameter being less than 1 mm ([0013]), and the flow is set such that bubbles are generated by micro-cavitation, the fluid then comprising a liquid phase and a gas phase, then allowing at least one partial transfer of the at least one dissolved gas present in the liquid phase to the gas phase; separating the liquid phase and the gas phase; and recovering the liquid phase to obtain the degas sed fluid, the method not involving the application of ultrasound to the fluid between the step in which the fluid is supplied at the inlet of the reactor and the step of separating the liquid phase and the gas phase.
As regarding claim 2, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the reduced hydraulic diameter is less than 300 mm (abstract).
As regarding claim 3, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention for wherein the liquid phase and the gas phase are separated at an outlet of the reactor, the third portion having a length selected to temporally dissociate the generation of bubbles by cavitation and the separation of the liquid phase and the gas phase (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 4, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention for wherein at least one conduit comprises one of a diaphragm, or even a micro-diaphragm, a Venturi, or even a micro-Venturi and a step, or even a micro-step (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 5, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second portion has a section transverse to a longitudinal axis of the at least one conduit, of an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 3 ([0019]).
As regarding claim 7, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fluid has a viscosity less than 5 mPa.s at a method implementation temperature ([0023]).
As regarding claim 8, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention for wherein thea fluid flow velocity in at least one reactor is set such that the flow is turbulent at least downstream of the second portion (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 9, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention for wherein, when the fluid flows through the third portion, the fluid is at a pressure less than a pressure of the fluid in the first portion (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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayela et al (US 20190276316; hereinafter Ayela).
As regarding claim 6, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first portion has a transverse section of area A1, and the second portion has a transverse section of area A2, the transverse section of area A1 and the transverse section of area A2 being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the conduit, the ratio A1/A2 being greater than or equal to 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first portion has a transverse section of area A1, and the second portion has a transverse section of area A2, the transverse section of area A1 and the transverse section of area A2 being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the conduit, the ratio A1/A2 being greater than or equal to 3 in order to enhance reactor performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
As regarding claim 10, Ayela as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pressure in the third portion is less than thea ambient pressure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the pressure in the third portion is less than thea ambient pressure in order to enhance reactor performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayela et al (US 20190276316; hereinafter Ayela), as applied supra, and further in view of Debruin (US 20020137877).
As regarding claim 11, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein, when the fluid flows through the third portion, or even until the liquid phase and the gas phase are separated from each other, the fluid is at a temperature comprised between a fluid solidification temperature and thea fluid boiling temperature, the fluid temperature being controlled by a heating device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the reactor comprises a plurality of conduits in order to enhance reactor performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Debruin (figs. 7B and 7F; [0320]-[0331]).
Claims 12-14 are likewise rejected for reasons similar to those provided for claim 11 above.
As regarding claim 15, Ayela discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ayela discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the reactor comprises a plurality of conduits. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the reactor comprises a plurality of conduits in order to enhance reactor performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Debruin (fig. 7F).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached on (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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773