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 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.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending and Examined
2,3 and 25-27
1, 4, 5, 7-9 and 18
6, 10-17 and 19-24
1, 4-24
All claims are drawn to an apparatus.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 11/05/2025) 35 USC §§102 and 103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent rejections. However, after careful reconsideration of the claims, Examiner believes new 35 USC §103 rejections are appropriate and has applied such rejections to the noted claims.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated January 29, 2026, Applicant amended the claims to address the rejections and claim interpretations of a prior Office action (OA) and/or to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies new claim interpretations and grounds of rejections in this OA including a combination of prior art of record and/or one or more new references.
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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US20190241447; Kang) (of record) in view of Qu et al. (CN107673445; Qu) (IDS of 10-30-2023).
In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. See Claim Interpretation section of the 11-05-2025 OA.
Regarding claims 1, 4-10, 13, 14, 16 and 17, Kang discloses a water treatment system 900 (Abstract, [0064], Figs. 7, 9; refs. 18, 91, 92 and 94) comprising:
a venturi injector (mechanism for injecting liquid 94) including a venturi inlet (inlet proximate the injected liquid 94) that intakes water to be treated;
a venturi throat 92 including an orifice in fluid communication with a gas source 18;
a cylindrical discharge electrode 74 integrated into a gas inlet (opening into the channel 78 of the discharge electrode 74) in fluid communication with the orifice for generating a plasma discharge, thereby producing treated water ([0057], Figs. 7, 9); and
a venturi outlet (exit 84 of the electrode tube 74) that discharges the treated water.
Therefore, Kang discloses the claimed invention, except wherein the cylindrical discharge electrode is disposed in and coaxial with the venturi throat.
One of ordinary skill may view locating the discharge electrode in the venturi throat as a rearrangement of existing parts such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention been obvious to implement this expedient as an alternate arrangement, or as one of many engineering choices for placement of the discharge electrode.
Also, Qu discloses a Venturi throat discharge plasma treatment method of the waste water, the waste water to be treated into the Venturi tube processing device, and the processing device is through a venturi inlet pipe introducing air or oxygen, in the venturi tube processing device of the throat, and using the low voltage to a corona discharge or a dielectric barrier discharge to ionize the gas in the liquid phase to generate low temperature plasma containing active free radicals and O3. The discharge electrode is arranged in the annular ground electrode ([0009]). The low-temperature plasma interacts with the catalytic coating on the annular ground electrode set at the throat of the Venturi tube processing device, increasing the free radical concentration of the reaction system ([008], [0032]). The discharge electrode provided at the throat of the initial (first) venturi tube is a hollow rod-shaped electrode, and an aeration hole is opened on the hollow rod-shaped electrode ([0010]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device with a cylindrical discharge electrode that is disposed in and coaxial with the venturi throat, as taught in Qu, since this is a compact arrangement and tends to increase the free radical and ozone concentrations of the reaction system ([0008], [0032]), thereby improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the water treatment.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 4: The cylindrical discharge electrode is a hollow cylindrical discharge electrode (Kang, [0061], Fig. 7, 8A, 9); Claim 5: The hollow cylindrical discharge electrode further includes an endcap and a plurality of side openings in a cylinder wall (Kang, [0017], [0019]); Claim 6: The endcap includes a central opening (Kang, [0017], [0019]); Claim 7: The cylindrical discharge electrode is a solid rod ([0047], Figs. 7, 8A, where the cylindrical discharge electrode 74 may be reasonably interpreted as a rod, and which may be made from a solid material); Claim 8: The venturi inlet includes a taper in fluid communication with the venturi throat (Kang, [0064], Fig. 9, where the sidewalls of the venturi 91 tapers from the inlet for gas 18 to the venturi throat 92); Claim 9: The water treatment system further includes a cylindrical insulator 77 around the cylindrical discharge electrode 74 (Kang, [0061], Fig. 8A); Claim 10: The venturi outlet is a ground electrode (Kang, [0057], [0059], Figs. 7, 9); Claim 13: The water treatment system further includes a ground electrode 75 disposed downstream of the venturi throat (Kang, [0057], [0064], Figs. 7, 9); Claim 14: The water treatment system, wherein the water to be treated has an electrical conductivity in a range of between 10 mS/cm and 250 mS/cm (Kang, [0007], [0064], [0071]; also the electrical conductivity of the water is a functional aspect not clearly affecting the structure of the system); Claim 16: The water treatment system, wherein the water to be treated has an electrical conductivity in a range of between 0.1 mS/cm and 250 mS/cm (Kang, [0007], [0064], [0071]; also the electrical conductivity of the water is a functional aspect since the water is not a structural part of the apparatus); and Claim 17: The gas includes gas to be treated (Kang, [0057], Figs. 7, 9, where one can interpret the gas 18 leaving through exit 72 as treated, since it is exposed to reactive species generated from the plasma discharge).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 15, Kang and Qu combined discloses or suggest the water treatment system of claim 1, except further including a ground electrode disposed upstream of the venturi throat.
However, Kang teaches the use of ground electrodes and notes that one can place a ground electrode in different locations, including in the liquid and upstream of the liquid inlet in fluid communication with the liquid (Kang, [0012], [0014], [0017], [0019]). Qu also teaches the use of ground electrodes (Kang, [0008], [0009]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment and to dispose a ground electrode upstream of the venturi throat as an alternate or additional configuration for achieving the desired water treatment.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 12: The water to be treated has an electrical conductivity in a range of between 0.1 mS/cm and 10 mS/cm (Kang, [0007], [0064], [0071], where the electrical conductivity of the water is a functional aspect not clearly affecting the structure of the apparatus); and Claim 15: The water treatment system further includes a ground electrode disposed within the venturi throat (claim 11 analysis).
Regarding claims 18-20, Kang and Qu together discloses or suggests the water treatment system of claim 1, except further including side openings in a cylinder wall of the cylindrical discharge electrode.
However, Kang discusses and discloses these features in alternate embodiments (Kang, [0022], [0050], [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment and attempt different configurations based on alternate embodiments or to combine the features of different embodiments in an attempt at enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the water treatment.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 19: The discharge electrode further includes a central opening in fluid communication with the gas inlet ([0069], Fig. 11 C); and Claim 20: The water treatment system further includes a cylindrical insulator around the cylindrical discharge electrode (Kang, [0014], [0017], [0019], [0061], Figs. 8A-8C).
Regarding claim 21, Kang and Qu combined discloses or suggests the water treatment system of claim 20, except wherein the venturi injector is a ground electrode.
Kang discusses various options for the ground electrode, including embodiments where one can position at least a portion of a ground electrode in a liquid, and inject a gas through the lumen of the high voltage electrode and into the liquid (Kang, [0016]). The ground electrode can also be disposed in the interior space of the liquid vessel (Kang, [0017]). The ground electrode may be disposed upstream of the liquid inlet in fluid communication with the liquid (Kang, [0019]). In some embodiments, an outer cylindrical tube may form the ground electrode (Kang, [0052]).
Therefore, given the number of potential options, when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment with using the venturi injector as a ground electrode which would reduce the number of structural component and potentially the attendant costs necessary for carrying out the desired water treatment.
Regarding claims 22-24, Kang and Qu together discloses the water treatment system of claim 1, except further including a gas recirculation system in fluid communication with the gas source.
However, Kang teaches an embodiment that includes a vessel for mixing liquid and gas from a gas source with an active plasma, wherein the vessel may be further fluidly connected to a storage vessel, the storage vessel comprising a gas outlet in fluid communication with the gas source for recirculating used gas (Kang, [0074]-[0076], Figures 14A, 14B; FIG. 14A shows a schematic diagram of an embodiment of a system 1400 for generating plasma discharge in liquid including liquid circulation; FIG. 14B also shows the gas outlet 1465 connected to a compressor 1466, a compressed outgas tank 1467, and an on/off valve 1468 for mixing the gas with the compressed gas 1418 and recycling it into the gas channel 1478).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the claimed invention was effectively filed to combine the various embodiments as taught by Kang, and to couple the gas recirculation system in fluid communication with the gas source to be used with the venturi water treatment system, by recycling the used gas from the exit 34 back to the gas source 18, to advantageously provide a mechanism for recycling the gas 18 used in the system which exits through 34, and to thereby reduce waste.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 23: The venturi outlet discharges the treated water into a water holding tank in fluid communication with the venturi inlet (claim 22 analysis; Kang, [0074]-[0076], wherein a vessel for mixing liquid and gas from a gas source with active plasma species may be fluidly connected to a storage or holding vessel); and Claim 24: The water treatment system further includes a gas recirculation system in fluid communication with the gas source (claim 22 analysis).
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571)270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779