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.
Claim 32 is 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.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “to reintroduce at least a part of the separated gas into the separation vessel, for example combined with another gas.” It is unclear if the limitation of “for example, combined with another gas” is a limiting feature of the device or not. It will be interpreted to read “to reintroduce at least a part of the separated gas into the separation vessel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 20, 21, 23-25, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petty (US20190345396).
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP942 (JP2001104942A, applicant’s attached translation will be referenced.).
Claim(s) 20, 24, 25, 27-31, 33, 34 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU122 (RU2641122C1, attached translation will be referenced.)
Rejection in view of Petty
Claim 20: Petty teaches a system for degasification of a gaseous liquid (Abstract teaches degassing unit for fluid for vapor recovery. Figure 10A and [0075] teaches the system.), the system comprising: a separation vessel having at least one outer wall delimiting an inner volume and configured for separating gas from the gaseous liquid (Figure 10A shows the vessel 124 with an outer wall defining the interior volume); at least one inlet adapted to introduce the gaseous liquid into the inner volume (Inlet 208); at least one gas suction line attached to the separation vessel and being adapted to discharge the separated gas from the inner volume (vapor recovery system 128 can remove separated gas by way of conduit 1013, [0075]); at least one outlet adapted to discharge a degassed liquid from the inner volume (Outlet 209); and a sonotrode cluster configured to expose the gaseous liquid to ultrasonic waves (ultrasonic transducer unit 210.); the sonotrode cluster comprising at least one sonotrode extending from the outer wall of the separation vessel into the inner volume (Figure 10a shows this is attached to the outer wall and extends into the inside of the vessel).
The limitation of “a nuclear power plant comprising” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 21: Petty teaches the gaseous liquid comprises water and at least one gas and related nuclides, the gas being chosen from a group consisting of: hydrogen; oxygen; nitrogen; xenon; and krypton ([0003] teaches that this is for cleaning a mixture of crude oil, natural gas, and water. Natural gas includes nitrogen, which would read upon this limitation.).
Claim 23: Petty teaches the at least one sonotrode extends perpendicularly relative to the outer wall from the outer wall into the inner volume (Figure 10A shows that this is perpendicular to the outer wall).
Claim 24: Petty teaches the outer wall comprises a lateral wall, and comprises furthermore an upper wall and a lower wall connected by the lateral wall (Figure 10A shows there is a lateral cylindrical wall and a top and bottom wall.).
Claim 25: Petty teaches the at least one sonotrode extends from the lateral wall (Figure 10A shows this).
Claim 33: Petty teaches the sonotrode cluster is arranged such that the gaseous liquid in the inner volume is penetrated homogenously (Figures 3, 4, and 10A shows that the sonotrode clusters can be arranged homogenously through the vessel. Each of them also produces the ultrasonic waves around the entire device as shown in 10A.).
This limitation is also considered to be intended usage as there is no further structure. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Rejection in view of JP942
Claim 34: JP942 teaches a nuclear power plant comprising a system for degasification of a gaseous liquid ([0001] teaches making a degassed liquid using ultrasonic waves in a nuclear power plant.), the system comprising: a separation vessel having at least one outer wall delimiting an inner volume (Figure 1 shows the device 1 with the outer wall or container housing the inside.); at least one inlet adapted to introduce the gaseous liquid into the inner volume (Water supply line 4 and 40.); at least one gas suction line attached to the separation vessel and being adapted to discharge separated gas from the inner volume (exhaust pipe 9); and at least one outlet adapted to discharge a degassed liquid from the inner volume (deaerated water 8); and a sonotrode cluster configured to expose the gaseous liquid to ultrasonic waves (ultrasonic treatment chamber 11), the at least one inlet comprising at least one spray nozzle configured to disperse the gaseous liquid in the form of droplets into the inner volume (Spray pipe 3).
Claim 35: JP942 teaches the sonotrode cluster comprises at least one sonotrode arranged upstream of the separation vessel (Figure 1 shows that the ultrasonic treatment chamber 11 is upstream of the vessel 1.).
Rejection in view of RU122
Claim 20: RU122 teaches a system for degasification of a gaseous liquid ([0006] teaches a device for degassing water of radioactivity and radon.), the system comprising: a separation vessel having at least one outer wall delimiting an inner volume and configured for separating gas from the gaseous liquid (Figure 1 shows the column 2 with cover 1 which defines the interior volume.); at least one inlet adapted to introduce the gaseous liquid into the inner volume (Water inlet 3); at least one gas suction line attached to the separation vessel and being adapted to discharge the separated gas from the inner volume (removing gas from 4); at least one outlet adapted to discharge a degassed liquid from the inner volume (Figure 1 shows it can be removed from the storage container 8.); and a sonotrode cluster configured to expose the gaseous liquid to ultrasonic waves (ultrasonic emitters 16 located in the vessel.); the sonotrode cluster comprising at least one sonotrode extending from the outer wall of the separation vessel into the inner volume ([0013] teaches that they can be installed along the perimeter of the column body.).
The limitation of “a nuclear power plant comprising” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 24: RU122 teaches the outer wall comprises a lateral wall, and comprises furthermore an upper wall and a lower wall connected by the lateral wall (figure 1 shows there is a top and bottom and a lateral wall between them.).
Claim 25: RU122 teaches the at least one sonotrode extends from the lateral wall ([0013] and figure 1 teaches they are along the perimeter of the column.).
Claim 27: RU122 teaches the inlet comprises at least one spray nozzle configured to disperse the gaseous liquid in the form of droplets into the inner volume (Figure 1 shows spray nozzles 17).
Claim 28: RU122 teaches the at least one sonotrode is arranged at least partially inside the spray nozzle ([0013] teaches that the nozzles can be ultrasonic nozzle emitters.).
Claim 29: RU122 teaches the at least one spray nozzle forms the at least one sonotrode ([0013] teaches that the nozzles can be ultrasonic nozzle emitters. It also teaches that they can be on the spray nozzles.).
Claim 30: RU122 teaches the degasification system comprises a grid structure arranged in the inner volume of the separation vessel (See the section by reference number 7.).
Claim 31: RU122 teaches the degasification system comprises a stripping gas device configured for introducing a stripping gas into the inner volume ([0013] teaches that during operation, the water is sprayed by nozzles and hits the nozzle, an air flow is supplied from below, and degassing occurs on the surface of the nozzle, removing radon from the water and venting gases through the upper pipe. This would read upon the limitation.).
Claim 33: RU122 teaches sonotrode cluster is arranged such that the gaseous liquid in the inner volume is penetrated homogenously ([0013] teaches it is along the perimeter of the column as well on the nozzles and therefore would read upon this limitation.).
This limitation is also considered to be intended usage as there is no further structure. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 34: RU122 teaches a system for degasification of a gaseous liquid ([0006] teaches a device for degassing water of radioactivity and radon.), the system comprising: a separation vessel having at least one outer wall delimiting an inner volume (Figure 1 shows the column 2 with cover 1 which defines the interior volume.); at least one inlet adapted to introduce the gaseous liquid into the inner volume (Water inlet 3); at least one gas suction line attached to the separation vessel and being adapted to discharge separated gas from the inner volume (removing gas from 4); and at least one outlet adapted to discharge a degassed liquid from the inner volume (Figure 1 shows it can be removed from the storage container 8.); and a sonotrode cluster configured to expose the gaseous liquid to ultrasonic waves (ultrasonic emitters 16 located in the vessel.), the at least one inlet comprising at least one spray nozzle configured to disperse the gaseous liquid in the form of droplets into the inner volume (Spray nozzles 17.).
The limitation of “a nuclear power plant comprising” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 36: RU122 teaches the sonotrode cluster comprises at least one sonotrode extending from the outer wall of the separation vessel into the inner volume (Figure 1 shows ultrasonic emitters 16 along the outer wall and extends into the device.).
Claim 37: RU122 teaches the at least one sonotrode extending from the outer wall of the separation vessel is arranged at least partially inside the spray nozzle ([0013] teaches that the nozzles can be ultrasonic nozzle emitters.).
Claim 38: RU122 teaches the at least one spray nozzle forms the at least one sonotrode extending from the outer wall of the separation vessel (Figure 1 shows that the spray nozzles extend from the outer wall into the vessel and [0013] teaches that the nozzles can be ultrasonic nozzle emitters.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU122 in view of Meintker (US20090290676).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petty or RU122 in view of US303 (US20120193303).
Rejection in view of Meintker
Claim 22: RU122 does not explicitly teach a primary reactor coolant circuit and a secondary reactor coolant circuit, at least the inlet being fluidically connected to the primary reactor coolant circuit or to the secondary reactor coolant circuit. RU122 teaches purifying water of radioactivity and radon ([0003]).
Meintker teaches a degasification system for a reactor coolant for a nuclear engineering plant ([0002]-[0003]). It teaches that depending on the operation, radioactive gases can be present in the water of the reactor and would require degasification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the degasser of RU122 in the device of Meintker with reactor coolant circuits, as Meintker and RU122 both teach degassing water by removing radioactive gases.
If the prior arts do not teach a secondary reactor coolant circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple reactor coolant circuits since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case a nuclear engineering plant could have more than one reactor coolant circuits.
Claim 32: RU122 does not explicitly teach the degasification system comprises a recombinator configured to receive the separated gas, and to reintroduce at least a part of the separated gas into the separation vessel. RU122 teaches purifying water of radioactivity and radon ([0003]).
Meintker teaches a degasification system for a reactor coolant for a nuclear engineering plant ([0002]-[0003]). It teaches that depending on the operation, radioactive gases can be present in the water of the reactor and would require degasification. Meintker also teaches in [0060]-[0062] that part of the stripping vapor D that is removed from the reactor through the exit line 32 at the column head 8 is sent to a stripping vapor condenser 34 in which the gas is cooled and part of the gas condenses is sent back to the degasser 6.
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a recombinator as taught by Meintker in the device of RU122 as Meintker and RU122 both teach degassing water by removing radioactive gases and Meintker teaches the benefit of being ale to reuse some of the gas for the degasifier column 6.
Rejection in view of US303
Claim 26: Petty and RU122 do not explicitly state the inlet and the outlet are arranged tangentially with respect to the lateral wall of the separation vessel so as to generate a centrifugal flow of the gaseous liquid in the separation vessel. US303 teaches a degassing unit to separate liquid and gas from a mixture of gas and liquid ([0011]). It teaches in figures 2 and 3 a degasser with tangential inlet and outlet in order to help induce centrifugal flow for better degassing ([0080] and [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have tangential inlet and outlet as taught by US303 in the prior arts as US303 teaches a degassing device that uses these to induce centrifugal flow for better degassing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 11/03/2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776