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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “agitation means”, “mechanical interaction means” in claim 1, “cyclone means” in claim 10, 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 3,9-13, 19, 23 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 claim 3 , the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites “the surrounding reactor wall”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the surrounding reactor wall” in previous claim limitations. Claims 10-13 and 19 depend on claim 9 and hence are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites “the cyclone means”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cyclone means” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 9 recites “a cyclone”.
Regarding claim 23 , the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 –
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Japanese reference(7-155523).
Japanese reference in figure 1 teaches a fine bubbles generation method for converting gas into fine bubbles in liquid, where the method comprises the following steps: in a first step, bringing the gas(gas inlet 2) into contact with the liquid(liquid sprayers 4) under agitation(noting axial swirling elements 5 providing agitation) causing the liquid to take up gas in dissolved form and as first step bubbles(examiner noting the mechanical force provided by swirling elements provides for shearing of bubbles formed through gas and liquid contact; noting para 0004 stating “To achieve the desired effect, fine droplets are dispersed in the gas, and a swirling motion is imparted to the airflow by the blade swirling effect, just like in an axial flow cyclone. At this time, the generation of strong turbulence and relative velocity promotes gas absorption or fine particle collection, and the liquid sprayed onto the wall disperses again like a spray nozzle, generating a liquid film or fine droplets, which swirl and are sprayed directly onto the large surface area of the packing material made up of linear objects, where they are divided and washed again”), and resulting in a first step gas-laden liquid; and in a second step, subjecting the first step gas-laden liquid to at least one of i) pressure drops and ii) mechanical impacts(noting packed bed 11, wherein packed bed provides a random , winding movement through the packed bed, providing pressure drops and mechanical impacts on the gas-laden liquid) , creating cavitation bubbles and breaking up the cavitation bubbles and first step bubbles into smaller size second step fine bubbles resulting in a second step fine bubble-laden liquid(examiner noting movement through the packed bed and impact on structures within the packed bed causing shearing of first step bubbles into smaller size second step fine bubbles).
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese reference(7-155523).
Japanese reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 but is silent as to where the second step fine bubbles preferably have a diameter less than 50 micrometers. Examiner notes that Japanese reference teaches a combined gas-liquid contacting process including agitation and downstream mechanical impacting, wherein formation of a specific diameter fine bubble is within the skill of someone of ordinary skill in the art, wherein modification of different parameters such as gas velocity, swirl angle, and amount of mechanical impact provide for a certain fine bubble diameter. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation and modification of known parameters, to arrive at a bubble diameter less than 50 micrometers in order to provide for an optimized fine bubble diameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,2 , 4-8, 14-18, 20, 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites “A fine bubbles generation system for converting gas into fine bubbles in liquid, where the system comprises:
- a reactor vessel comprising gas input means, liquid input means, and liquid output means;
- agitation means arranged for agitating gas received through the gas input means and liquid received through the liquid input means, causing the liquid to take up gas in dissolved form and as first step bubbles, resulting in a first step gas-laden liquid; and
- mechanical interaction means arranged for mechanical interaction with the first step gas-laden liquid creating cavitation bubbles and breaking up the cavitation bubbles and first step bubbles into smaller size second step bubbles resulting in a second step fine bubble-laden liquid, where the mechanical interaction means comprise impacting surfaces comprising nanocellulose in the form of cellulose nanofibers (CNF) and/or cellulose nanocrystals (CNC),
where the agitation means and the mechanical interaction means are arranged in the reactor vessel between the gas input means and the liquid output means, the agitation means closest to the gas input means.”.
Japanese reference(7-155523)in figure 1 teaches a fine bubbles generation system for converting gas into fine bubbles in liquid, where the system comprises: a reactor vessel comprising gas input means(2), liquid input means(spray nozzles 4), and liquid output means(noting liquid sump in figure 1); agitation means(swirling elements 5) arranged for agitating gas received through the gas input means and liquid received through the liquid input means, causing the liquid to take up gas in dissolved form and as first step bubbles, resulting in a first step gas-laden liquid; and mechanical interaction means(packed bed 11) arranged for mechanical interaction with the first step gas-laden liquid creating cavitation bubbles and breaking up the cavitation bubbles and first step bubbles into smaller size second step bubbles resulting in a second step fine bubble-laden liquid, where the agitation means and the mechanical interaction means are arranged in the reactor vessel between the gas input means and the liquid output means, the agitation means closest to the gas input means.
However Japanese reference does not teach or suggest where the mechanical interaction means comprise impacting surfaces comprising nanocellulose in the form of cellulose nanofibers (CNF) and/or cellulose nanocrystals (CNC). Claims 2, 4-8, 14-18,20,21 depend on claim 1 and hence are also allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
November 3, 2025