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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on March 03, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted by the examiner that at the time of the writing of this Office action that an Information Statement (IDS) is not attached to the file wrapper of this application. The examiner therefore presumes the IDS has not been submitted by applicant and no applicant-admitted prior art has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the non-conductive pipe” in line 3 which lacks an antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the recitation to “a
Claim 1 recites “a ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the and in circumferential relation” in lines 5-6 which appears to be a misspelling of “a ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe and in circumferential relation” in view of the Drawings Figs. 1A-1D and Specification (paragraph [0023]) of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “ground electrode” in line 10. It is respectfully suggested to amend the recitation to “the ground electrode”.
Claim 2 recites “the bottom of the reactor” and “the top of the reactor” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “the bottom of the reactor” and “the top of the reactor” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the bottom” and “the bubble size formation” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 211570217U, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Cheng”).
In regard to claim 1, Cheng discloses a purification device and a purification method for treating antibiotic wastewater, in particular to a non-thermal plasma technology (page 2, Technical Field in conjunction with Fig. 1 of the original Chinese document).
Cheng discloses a bubbling discharge reactor (the purification device shown in Fig. 1 in its entirety) for treatment of liquid (antibiotic wastewater), comprising:
(i) a reactor (1, Fig. 1) encompassed by an outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) having an inlet tube (15, Fig. 1, a top) and an outlet tube (16, Fig. 1, a bottom) which meets the recited “a pipe having a top and a bottom”. The examiner designates the reactor (1, Fig. 1) encompassed by an outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) having an inlet tube (15, Fig. 1, a top) and an outlet tube (16, Fig. 1, a bottom) as the recited “a pipe having a top and a bottom (i.e., a tube of some material used to convey water, gas, oil, or other fluid substances”). Choosing “the reactor (1, Fig. 1) encompassed by an outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) having an inlet tube (15, Fig. 1, a top)” as the recited “a pipe having a top and a bottom” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting/designating a known portion(s) in a known apparatus of water purification device;
(ii) a gas sparger (4 and 14, Fig. 1) installed within the outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) of the reactor (1, Fig. 1). It is known in the art that for liquid and gas transport in water treatment apparatus, the most commonly used and effective polymer plastic pipes are High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC), and Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) as evidenced by Walsh (34 The Plastic Piping Industry in North America, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook, Copyright 2011, Elsevier Inc.) which is considered non-conductive materials;
(iii) a high voltage electrode (11, Fig. 1) fixed concentrically within the reactor (1, Fig. 1);
(iv) a ground electrode (17, Fig. 1) fixed at an outside of the outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) in circumferential relation to the high voltage electrode with an annular space defined between the ground electrode (17) and high voltage electrode (11) (note that there is a space between the high voltage electrode (11) and the ground electrode (17));
(v) a liquid inlet (15, Fig. 1) and a liquid outlet (16, Fig. 1); and
(vi) a circuit and power supply (a power source in conjunction with a controller 5, Fig. 1; page 3, 3rd paragraph thru 6th paragraph) for generating an electrical discharge between the high voltage electrode and ground electrode, thereby creating a plasma generation region.
But Cheng does not explicitly disclose the feature of ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe.
However, as set forth above, Cheng discloses the ground electrode (17, Fig. 1) fixed at an outside of the outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) (i.e., outside of the pipe) in circumferential relation to the high voltage electrode.
Though Cheng does not explicitly disclose the feature of ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe, since (i) Cheng discloses the ground electrode (17, Fig. 1) fixed at an outside of the outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) (i.e., outside of the pipe) in circumferential relation to the high voltage electrode; and (ii) Cheng’s electrode (17, Fig. 1) fixed at an outside of the outer cylinder (12, Fig. 1) is as least comparable to the recited configuration of the ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe, in regards to its function/operation, the configuration of the ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe recited in claim 1 of claimed invention is considered as substituting equivalent known for the same purpose of installing a ground electrode installed in circumferential relation to the high voltage electrode with an annular space defined between the ground electrode and high voltage electrode. See MPEP 2144.06 II. Moreover, it is the examiner’s assessment that the equivalency is recognized in the prior art and is not based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. The feature of ground electrode fixed at an intermediate position within the pipe is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Cheng.
In regard to claim 3, Cheng discloses liquid outlet (16, Fig. 1) is positioned adjacent the bottom of the reactor (1, Fig. 1) and the liquid inlet (15, Fig. 1) is positioned adjacent the top of the reactor (1, Fig.1).
In regard to claim 4, Cheng discloses the liquid inlet (15, Fig. 1) introduces liquid between the ground electrode (17, Fig. 1) and the high voltage electrode (11, Fig. 1) (page 3, 10th paragraph from the top).
In regard to claim 5, Cheng discloses the gas sparger (4 and 14, Fig. 1) is positioned adjacent the top right next to the liquid inlet (15, Fig. 1). It is known in the art that when gas is injected to flowing liquid, bubbles form during the initial stage of gas injection which govern their shape and size distribution as evidenced by Bai et al. (Bubble Formation during Horizontal Gas Injection into Downward-Flowing Liquid, METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B, VOLUME 32B, DECEMBER 2001 – pp.1143-1159). The recitation of claim 5 is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Cheng, as evidenced by Bai et al.
In regard to claim 6, Cheng discloses the reactor (1, Fig. 1) is made of stainless steel (page 3, 9th paragraph from the top). It is known in the art that for liquid and gas transport in water treatment apparatus, the most commonly used and effective polymer plastic pipes are High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC), and Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) as evidenced by Walsh (34 The Plastic Piping Industry in North America, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook, Copyright 2011, Elsevier Inc.) which is considered a non-conductive material. The teachings of Cheng, as evidenced by Walsh, renders the recitation of claim 6 prima facie obvious.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bartrand et al. (Countercurrent gas/liquid flow and mixing: Implications for water disinfection, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 171–184, hereinafter “Bartrand”).
In regard to claim 2, Cheng discloses co-current flows of gas and liquid to the reactor (1, Fig. 1).
But Cheng does not explicitly disclose the feature of the liquid outlet is positioned adjacent the top of the reactor and the liquid inlet is positioned adjacent the bottom of the reactor which directs counter-current flows of gas and liquid.
However, Bartrand discloses a method/an apparatus of bench scale bubble column reactor for experimental and numerical results from the hydrodynamics investigations (page 171, Abstract). Bartrand discloses counter-current bubble column contactors are the most-frequently used reactors for dissolution of gaseous ozone into the aqueous phase in municipal water and wastewater treatment (page 271, col. 1, 2nd paragraph).
It is noted that both the Cheng and Bartrand references direct an apparatus for wastewater treatment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Cheng, to provide the feature of the liquid outlet is positioned adjacent the top of the reactor and the liquid inlet is positioned adjacent the bottom of the reactor which directs counter-current flows of gas and liquid as taught by Bartrand, because countercurrent bubble column contactors are the most-frequently used reactors for dissolution of gaseous ozone into the aqueous phase in municipal water and wastewater treatment as taught by Bartrand (page 271, col. 1, 2nd paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772