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 .
Response to Amendment
The substitute specification filed with the amendment submitted on August 28, 2025 is noted. The substitute specification does not comply with 37 CFR 1.125(b), since it has not been accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter. Furthermore, while two copies of the substitute specification have been received, one with markings showing the changes made to the specification, as well as a clean copy of the substitute specification, both copies have been submitted with the header “SPECIFICATION WITH MARKINGS TO SHOW CHANGES MADE”.
Accordingly, applicant should resubmit the substitute specification with the proper headers on each of the copies, and along with the required statement, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.125(b).
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 1, 2, 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2012/108035 A1.
WO 2012/108035 A1 (Figs. 3 and 5; English Machine Translation) discloses a device for the generation of micro and nano bubbles of air in water (claims 1 and 16), the device including an outer tubular body (33), an inlet (at the left of 27 in Fig. 5), the shape of element (27) providing a converging element configured to concentrate the flow of incoming liquid, an outlet (at the right of 29 in Fig. 5), the shape of the element (29) providing a diverging element (claim 12) at the outlet of the Venturi chamber (31,32,33), the Venturi chamber formed in a central body of the device within the outer tubular body (33), a pre-chamber formed between the Venturi chamber and the outer tubular body (33), the pre-chamber being filled with gas that enters the device from an external source through air intake (14), the Venturi chamber being partially conical and diverging (claim 2) (the diameter of the elements 30,31,32 increasing slightly toward the outlet 29), the elements of the Venturi chamber (30,31,32) being in the form of a plurality of conical spacers (claim 1) engaged with one another to provide a plurality of holes (claim 5) in the form of gas passages (claim 1) formed in the contact planes between the spacers, the passages having a “certain roughness” (claim 1) along the contact surfaces of the spacers to allow for gas to be sucked into the liquid passing through the throat of the Venturi chamber. Applicant should note that all surfaces of conventionally machined parts inherently have a “certain roughness”, either intentionally or unintentionally. Clearly the width of the gas delivery slits (36) between the plurality of conical spacers (30,31,32), when the conical spacers are fully seated together via the screw thread connections will be at least partially provided and/or defined by the surface roughness of the adjacent surfaces forming the slits (36). It is noted that applicant’s specification does not clearly define the dimensional characteristics provided by the claimed “certain roughness of the contact surfaces of each spacer” (see the only relevant discussion thereof at lines 22-25 of page 8 of the original specification). It is further noted that line 28 on page 8 of the original specification indicates that the conical spacers of the invention may be fixed together through threads, in a manner similar or identical to the WO ‘035 reference.
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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/108035 A1.
WO 2012/108035 A1 (Figs. 3 and 5; English Machine Translation) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 3 and 4, except for a specific disclosure that the wall of the Venturi chamber is angled between 0.1 and 3.5 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the device, and the diameter of the mouthpiece of the Venturi chamber is between 1/5 and 1/12 of the diameter of the inlet of the device. It is noted that the claims do not specifically define a structure indicative of “the mouthpiece of the Venturi chamber”. Wherein WO 2012/108035 A1 (see Fig. 5 of WO ‘035, and the second to last full paragraph of page 3 of the English Machine Translation of the reference, as submitted by applicant) clearly discloses that the diameter of the conical spacer elements of the Venturi chamber increase slightly toward the exit of the chamber, one having ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged a Venturi chamber wherein the angulation of the walls of the chamber was within the range as set forth by instant claim 3, in view of the overall disclosure of the reference. Furthermore, absent an unexpected showing of criticality, it would have also been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to construct a Venturi device wherein the inlet of the Venturi chamber was between 1/5 and 1/12 of the overall inlet diameter of the device, in view of the overall disclosure of the reference, with the optimization of the relative diameters of instant claim 4 being an obvious result of routine experimentation with the reference apparatus.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/108035 A1, as applied above, and further in view of either Nielsen or Gunzel, Jr., et al.
WO 2012/108035 A1, as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 9-11, except for the splitter element that provides an outflow channel that is external to and concentric with the Venturi chamber to allow for excess liquid to be diverted around the exterior of the Venturi chamber.
Nielsen (33 in Fig. 1) or Gunzel, Jr., et al (25 in Fig. 4, for example) each alternatively disclose splitter structures that allow for excess liquid passing through the device to pass through a channel that is external to and concentric with the Venturi chamber, thereby allowing the device to operate consistently, even in the event that the liquid flow to the device is in the form of an inconsistent, pulsed flow. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the structure of the device surrounding the Venturi chamber of WO ‘035, to include a splitter structure and an external and concentric liquid flow channel around the Venturi chamber, in view of either Nielsen or Gunzel, Jr., et al, since such would provide means for producing a consistent outlet flow stream from the Venturi chamber, even in the event of inconsistent, pulsed liquid flow into the overall device.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/108035 A1, taken together with Klinksiek et al.
WO 2012/108035 A1 as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as set forth by instant claims 13 and 14, except for the wedge-shaped profile element positioned at the outlet from the diverging element of the device.
Klinksiek et al (Fig. 2) discloses a Venturi type mixing device for providing an homogenized mixture of two fluids that are fed to the throat area of the Venturi, the device including a wedge-shaped profile element (9) placed at the liquid outlet of the diverging portion of the Venturi, the wedge-shaped element providing for uniform, homogenized flow from the device. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the divergent outlet of the WO ‘035 Venturi mixer with a wedge-shaped element placed therein, in view of Klinksiek et al, since such would provide for more uniform flow from the device, thereby providing a more consistent product stream.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Adam et al.
The reference combination as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, substantially disclose applicant’s invention as set forth by instant claim 15, except for the wedge=shaped profile having a wedge on each opposite longitudinal end.
Adam et al (The Figure) discloses a Venturi type mixing device having a wedge-shaped profile (P) with a wedge on each opposite longitudinal end to provide for smooth flow from the outlet end of the device. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the shape of the wedge-shaped profile element of the primary reference combination, to have wedge profiles on each end, in view of Adam et al, since such would provide for smooth exit flow of the product stream from the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments relative to the prior art applied thereto are solely based upon the premise that WO ‘035 fails to disclose or suggest that the gas passages from the pre-chamber to the Venturi chamber are provided by a certain roughness of the contact surfaces of each spacer. Applicant’s position is incorrect. Please note at least the last 16 lines of text of paragraph 4 above, which clearly specify how the WO ‘035 reference is anticipatory of the “certain roughness of the conical spacer surfaces” as now recited by amended independent claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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.
/C.S.B/9-22-25
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776