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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Jameson (US 2008/0308502).
Regarding claim 15, Rabe teaches a separation unit comprising a separation tank (1 101 201), an inlet (11 111 211) for influent comprising the water and the contaminants, a gas injector (4) for injecting gas into the influent, an outlet (104 204) for effluent, an outlet for liquid reject (112 212), and an outlet (12) for the gas, (Figs. 1 and 7-8; [0031]-[0057]).
It is noted that while Rabe teaches the gas inlets and outlets in Fig. 1 and Figs. 7-8 include the other outlets claimed, no specific drawing provides all the inlets and outlets in one figure. However, the description of Figs. 7-8 both state the tank is an example of a flotation unit illustrated in Fig. 1 thereby implying that the structure in Fig. 1 is present even if not shown in both Figs. 7-8. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found that Rabe anticipates the inlet and gas outlet structure as being part of the units in Figs. 7-8, or it would have been obvious to do so in order to provide said structure of Fig. 1 into the tanks of Figs. 7-8 as it was considered by Rabe and would provide the benefits associated with the gas injector inlet to the tanks of Figs. 7-8.
Rabe teaches an inlet section that includes the inlet for the influent, the gas injector and is configured to supply the resulting mixed influent into the separation tank. Rabe teaches the inlet section having a flow restriction capable of increasing turbulence and a diffuser/expanding portion capable of reducing the flow velocity (Figs. 2-5). It is noted that the flow restriction is at the gas injector and not downstream as claimed. Jameson teaches that it is beneficial to provide gas injector (15) upstream of a flow restricting means (throttling duct 18) and a diffuser downstream of the flow restriction means in order to control the pressure in the air liquid mixture after formation (Figs. 1-2, [0010], [0016], and [0070]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide the flow restriction means and diffuser downstream of the gas inlet in order to control the properties of the air/liquid mixture thereby aiding in the desired separation.
It is noted that the specific operation steps and effects on the fluid being treated during operation are not given patentable weight when the structure is disclosed. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). In this case, all claimed structure is taught in Rabe and the apparatus is capable of being operated as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Rabe teaches that the inlet section provides the influent into the separation tank in a tangential manner (Figs. 1 and 7-8; and [0031]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892).
Regarding claim 1, Rabe teaches a separation unit comprising a separation tank (1 101 201), an inlet (11 111 211) for influent comprising the water and the contaminants, a gas injector (4) for injecting gas into the influent, an outlet (104 204) for effluent, an outlet for liquid reject (112 212), and an outlet (12) for the gas, wherein the separation unit, under operation, is capable of including in the separation tank a gas cushion and a gas-liquid interface, the various outlets being controlled by valves and wherein the separation unit is adapted to control a level of the gas-liquid interface in the separation tank by regulating leakage of gas at the liquid reject valve and/or the gas reject valve (inherent as fluid exiting from the tank from any of the outlets would also affect the gas liquid interface) (Figs. 1 and 7-8; [0031]-[0057]).
It is noted that while Rabe teaches the gas inlets and outlets in Fig. 1 and Figs. 7-8 include the other outlets claimed, no specific drawing provides all the inlets and outlets in one figure. However, the description of Figs. 7-8 both state the tank is an example of a flotation unit illustrated in Fig. 1 thereby implying that the structure in Fig. 1 is present even if not shown in both Figs. 7-8. Further, [0033] states “The gas supplied to the gas injector 4 can be supplied from an external source of gas, in which case there is no need for a separate tank gas outlet 12, as the gas can simply exit the tank via the oil outlet.” This section implies that the gas outlet (12) is different from the oil outlet (112 212). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found that Rabe anticipates the inlet and gas outlet structure as being part of the units in Figs. 7-8, or it would have been obvious to do so in order to provide said structure of Fig. 1 into the tanks of Figs. 7-8 as it was considered by Rabe and would provide the benefits associated with the gas injector inlet to the tanks of Figs. 7-8. It is noted that separate gas and oil/liquid reject outlets are well known in the art (Tuckett Fig. 3 and [0075]) and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the separate outlets as claimed if one skilled in the art considered the outlets of Rabe to be the same structure.
Rabe fails to teach a gas liquid-interface measurement device as claimed. Ball teaches in a separation tank capable of separating into a gas portion and a liquid portion, it is beneficial to provide a gas-liquid measurement device in order to provide data to a controller that then controls the various valves in the system in order to the desired fluid levels within the tank (claim 2). As such, it would have been obvious to provide a gas-liquid measurement device in Rabe in order to provide data to a controller that then controls the various valves in the system in order to the desired fluid levels within the tank.
Regarding claim 2, modified Rabe is capable of providing the operational effects depending on how the apparatus is operated and therefore meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Rabe teaches that a plate (103 202) is provided in the separation tank that has the effect of deflecting the interface or fluid associated with the interface towards the liquid reject outlet during operation (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, Rabe teaches an inlet section that includes the inlet for the influent, the gas injector and is configured to supply the resulting mixed influent into the separation tank (Figs. 1 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Rabe teaches that the inlet section provides the influent into the separation tank in a tangential manner (Figs. 1 and 7-8; and [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Rabe is silent on the operation of the apparatus being controlled via a PLC. Bell teaches that a PLC is used to control the process via (claim 2) in order to automate said process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a PLC as claimed in order to automate the operation of the Rabe apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 1 above for the teachings directed to valves and for the gas-liquid interface measurement device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2016/0016816).
Regarding claim 4, Rabe fails to teach that the process is automated with the control being done via a timer. Anderson teaches that it is known for flotation chambers to be controlled via automatic timers thereby ensuring the proper inlet/outlet control and treatment rates ([0017] and claim 10). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to automate the Rabe apparatus via a timer in order to allow for the desired treatment and removal times.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rabe et al. (US 2016/0207791 hereinafter `791).
Regarding claim 5, Rabe fails to teach any of the outlets having a sensor for inline measurement of the concentrations/composition of going through said outlet and controlling the outlets based off of said reading. `791 teaches an outlet having a sensor for inline measurement of the concentrations/composition of going through said outlet and controlling the outlets based off of said reading ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an inline sensor as claimed in order to allow for control of the valve controlling said outlet to operate only during the desired conditions.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jameson (US 2008/0308502).
Regarding claim 7, Rabe teaches an inlet section that includes the inlet for the influent, the gas injector and is configured to supply the resulting mixed influent into the separation tank. Rabe teaches the inlet section having a flow restriction capable of increasing turbulence and a diffuser/expanding portion capable of reducing the flow velocity (Figs. 2-5). It is noted that the flow restriction is at the gas injector and not downstream as claimed. Jameson teaches that it is beneficial to provide gas injector (15) upstream of a flow restricting means (throttling duct 18) and a diffuser downstream of the flow restriction means in order to control the pressure in the air liquid mixture after formation (Figs. 1-2, [0010], [0016], and [0070]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide the flow restriction means and diffuser downstream of the gas injector in order to control the properties of the air/liquid mixture thereby aiding in the desired separation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0297620).
Regarding claim 9, Rabe teaches that the flow pattern of the liquid being treated can be manipulated via plates (103 202) in order to aid in the separation of oil from water but fails to teach the plates forming a vertical, serpentine flow path as claimed. Lee teaches that known flow paths that aid in the separation of oil from water include vertical plates that provide a serpentine flow path as claimed (Fig. 3). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide vertical plates as claimed in order to provide the serpentine path that aids in the separation of oil from water as it another, known and used flow path capable of aiding in the separation of oil from water.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) in view of Ball, IV (US 9,884,774) and Tuckett et al. (US 2012/0285892)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grimsley (US 4,251,361).
Regarding claim 10, Rabe fails to teach a means to supply a chemical to the influent before it enters the treatment tank. Grimsley teaches that for gas flotation separation of liquids, such as oil and water, an injection port (13) for chemicals that aid in hastening phase separation are providing upstream of the gas injection point thereby speeding up the desired separation (claim 4 and Fig. 1). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a chemical addition port upstream of the gas injectors in order to allow the addition of chemicals that aid in separation when the liquid being treated enters the separation tank.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) and Jameson (US 2008/0308502) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0297620).
Regarding claim 19, Rabe teaches that the flow pattern of the liquid being treated can be manipulated via plates (103 202) in order to aid in the separation of oil from water but fails to teach the plates forming a vertical, serpentine flow path as claimed. Lee teaches that known flow paths that aid in the separation of oil from water include vertical plates that provide a serpentine flow path as claimed (Fig. 3). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide vertical plates as claimed in order to provide the serpentine path that aids in the separation of oil from water as it another, known and used flow path capable of aiding in the separation of oil from water.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe et al. (US 2013/0207283) and Jameson (US 2008/0308502) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Grimsley (US 4,251,361).
Regarding claim 20, Rabe fails to teach a means to supply a chemical to the influent before it enters the treatment tank in the inlet section. Grimsley teaches that for gas flotation separation of liquids, such as oil and water, an injection port (13) for chemicals that aid in hastening phase separation are providing upstream of the gas injection point thereby speeding up the desired separation (claim 4 and Fig. 1). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a chemical addition port upstream of the gas injectors in the inlet section in order to allow the addition of chemicals that aid in separation when the liquid being treated enters the separation tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant has provided sufficient factual basis via the Klavenes declaration that the rearrangement of the gas injector amounts to more than a mere obvious rearrangement of parts with no critical benefits. The above rejection has been modified to specifically address providing a flow restriction means and diffuser after the gas injector in order to control the gas/liquid mixture to have the desired properties/bubble size in order to more efficiently separate components of the fluid.
Applicant argues that the oil and gas are both separated via the same line (212) and does not teach the separate outlets as claimed. As discussed above, Rabe [0033] states “The gas supplied to the gas injector 4 can be supplied from an external source of gas, in which case there is no need for a separate tank gas outlet 12, as the gas can simply exit the tank via the oil outlet.” Rabe considers that a separate gas outlet (12) is provided and said gas outlet is not part of the oil outlet (212) as argued. Further, Examiner has referenced Tuckett to show that separate gas and oil outlets are well known and would have been obvious even if one skilled in the art narrowly reads Rabe in a similar way as Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 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, 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights