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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 21, it is unclear if “/” means “and” or “or”. It is noted that there are two “/” in claim 10.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, it is unclear whether “preferably” and “more preferably” are required limitations. Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language (“more preferably”) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, “the installation/dilution unit” is unclear. Claim 1 recites “vessels/installations”. It is unclear whether “installation…unit” now requires that it not be “vessels”. It is also unclear whether this now only requires one “installation unit” rather than “installations”. Also, “installation unit” is not previously recited.
Regarding claim 17, “e.g. a transport tube” is unclear. It is unclear if this is just an example or if it further limits the claim to require a tube. It is also unclear whether “the transport tube” in claim 18 is required.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 16 and 21, “vessel/installation” are both singular, whereas claims 1 and 10 recite plural “vessels/installations”. This renders the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, “in a in” should be fixed.
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, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray GB 2508027 A.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Murray discloses a method/apparatus for exhaust gas treatment in vessels/installations located in a body of water (page 1, lines 1-20), where the method comprises the following steps: admixing ambient air to exhaust gas in a dilution unit resulting in diluted exhaust gas; drawing water and diluted exhaust gas into a bubble generator and generating bubbles containing diluted exhaust gas in the water (outer surface of pipe 12); and releasing the bubble-containing water into the body of water (under the hull of the vessel, the bubbles with water eventually leave the surface of the vessel at which point they are released into the body of water).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the “preferably” and “more preferably” language is optional; therefore, Murray anticipates these claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Murray discloses that the vessel/installation is a vessel with a hull, and the releasing comprises distributing the bubble-containing water in a curtain-like fashion cloaking parts of the hull of the vessel (page 1, lines 1-20; figures 1, 7 and 8).
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray GB 2508027 A in view of Kapteijn USPA 2013/0269589 A1.
Murray is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Murray does not disclose generating bubbles comprises generating nano- or microbubbles. Kapteijn discloses a similar system where the bubble generating apparatus generates micro-bubbles which efficiently reduce the drag (paragraphs 7 and 63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murray so that the bubbles are micro-bubbles, as disclosed by Kapteijn, for the purpose of efficiently reducing the drag.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray GB 2508027 A in view of Lee KR 102005186 B1 [translation].
Murray is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Murray does not disclose before the admixing of ambient air, scrubbing of the exhaust gas to remove specific harmful substances. Lee discloses a similar invention where the exhaust gas is scrubbed in order to remove specific harmful substances (see Lee page 4; 4th and 5th paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murray so that the exhaust gas is scrubbed, as disclosed by Lee, for the purpose of removing harmful substances from the exhaust gas. It’d be obvious to scrub the gas prior to mixing with air so the contaminants are in a higher concentration thus increasing the ease of removal, as is known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray GB 2508027 A in view of Payton USPA 2007/0237696 A1.
Murray is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13 and 14, Murray does not disclose extracting energy from the exhaust gas by converting thermal energy to mechanical energy where the mechanical energy comprises energy in the form of at least one of high pressure steam and electricity. Payton discloses extracting energy from the exhaust gas by converting thermal energy to mechanical energy where the mechanical energy comprises energy in the form of high pressure steam (paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murray to include extracting energy from the exhaust gas by converting thermal energy to mechanical energy where the mechanical energy comprises energy in the form of at least one of high pressure steam and electricity, as generally disclosed by Payton, for the purpose of not wasting the energy contained in the exhaust gas.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray GB 2508027 A in view of Han USPA 2022/0340235 A1.
Murray is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 17 and 18, Murray does not disclose transporting the diluted exhaust gas from the dilution unit via a transport tube to the bubble generator being remotely arranged relative to the installation/dilution unit, and where the releasing comprises transporting the bubble containing water via a transport tube, remotely to the vessel/installation injecting it into the body of water, and where the bubble generator and the injector unit are arranged at the transport tube in a in fluidal series connection. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to locate the components as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C). Furthermore, Han discloses the use of a transport tube to transfer water mixed with exhaust to the body of water (see Han figures: tube 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include such a transport tube as is known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray GB 2508027 A.
Murray is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 21, Murray does not disclose that the vessel/installation is a fixed or mobile drilling or processing installation. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to utilize the system of Murray on a fixed or mobile drilling or processing installation, in order to send the exhaust of such systems to the ocean, rather than the air, which Murray disclosed is beneficial (page 1, lines 1-20). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the environmental effects of Murray could be utilized on these sources of emissions as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the 112 2nd paragraph rejections were overcome, claims 19 and 20 would be 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the limitations of dependent claim 19. In particular, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious where the bubble generator is of venturi type with a throat region at least partly perforated by a plurality of holes where water from the body of water can mix with the diluted exhaust gas, and the mixture passes through a cavitation mesh arranged for breaking up bubbles to nano- or micro-size before being released into the body of water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776