DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 14 January 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12 and 14 are pending;
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 12 are currently amended;
Claims 8 and 14 were previously presented;
Claims 2, 4, 11 and 13 are cancelled;
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12 and 14 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. The reference to Molini does not need to show each and every limitation of the claim. Molini was used to show that it is known to inject gas below the water surface in the proximity of the end of a conduit irrespective of the flow direction. This teaching of Molini applied to Vondracek, namely inject gas below the water surface in the proximity of the end of a conduit, would result in the injection of gas downstream from the agitator of Vondracek as the end of the conduit below the water surface in Vondracek is located downstream from the agitator.
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 12 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.
As to Claim 12, the claim recites limitations that are already claimed in Claim 9 thereby being a duplicate. Appropriate correction is 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, 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 1-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondracek (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0257126) in view of Molini (U.S. Patent No. 5,009,069).
As to Claim 1, Vondracek discloses a sea-surface temperature lowering apparatus, comprising:
A pump (210) configured to pump deep seawater;
An agitation device (220) configured to agitate the pumped deep seawater and surface water to generate mixed water being a density current; and
A platform (22) including the pump (210) and the agitation device (220), wherein the generated density current is discharged toward an ocean current flowing around United States coasts (Paragraph 0036: “FIG. 5 displays a sample distribution of distribution systems 300 positioned at different locations along existing ocean currents in the Atlantic Basin to aid in distribution of the cool sea water at surface areas along the Atlantic Basin”),
The density current being downstream from an agitator included in the agitation device (220).
However, Vondracek is silent about a gas injection device configured to inject a gas into the mixed water, wherein the gas injection device is located downstream in the density current from an agitator included in the agitation device. Molini discloses a gas injection device (30, 32) configured to inject a gas into water (9). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas injection device configured to inject a gas into the water, wherein the gas injection device is located downstream in the density current from an agitator included in the agitation device. By applying Molini’s teaching of injecting gas into the water at the proximity of the opening of a conduit in Vondracek, it will result in the gas injection device being located downstream in the density current from the agitator included in the agitation device of Vondracek as the end of the conduit below the water surface in Vondracek is located downstream from the agitator. The motivation would have been to oxygenate the water.
As to Claim 3, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein the gas injection device (Molini: 30) injects the gas into the density current to generate a dissolved-oxygen density current with a higher concentration of oxygen, the platform is within a predetermined circular area, and the dissolved-oxygen density current is discharged to join the Gulf Stream (Paragraph 0036: “FIG. 5 displays a sample distribution of distribution systems 300 positioned at different locations along existing ocean currents in the Atlantic Basin to aid in distribution of the cool sea water at surface areas along the Atlantic Basin”. Such coordinates are in the Atlantic Basin).
As to Claim 5, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein the platform (22) includes a density current channel, in which the density current flows, and the agitator (220) is located upstream from the gas injection device (Molini: 30) in the density current channel.
As to Claim 6, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein the gas injection device (Molini: 30) injects the gas into seawater in an agitator included in the gas injection device or seawater flowing into the agitator (220).
As to Claim 7, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Although Vondracek as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the gas injected into the mixed water includes microbubbles with a diameter of 1 to 50 pm inclusive, or nanobubbles with a diameter less than 1 pm, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the diameter limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to Claim 9, Vondracek discloses a sea-surface temperature lowering method, comprising:
Generating (Via 220) mixed water being a density current by agitating deep seawater pumped (Via 210) and surface water in the surface water; and
Discharging (Via 440) the generated density current toward an ocean current flowing around the East Coast of the United States (Paragraph 0036: “FIG. 5 displays a sample distribution of distribution systems 300 positioned at different locations along existing ocean currents in the Atlantic Basin to aid in distribution of the cool sea water at surface areas along the Atlantic Basin”)
The density current being downstream from an agitator included in the agitation device (220).
However, Vondracek is silent about injecting a gas into the mixed water, wherein the injecting the gas includes injecting the gas into the density current after the deep seawater and the surface water are agitated. Molini discloses a gas injection device (30, 32) configured to inject a gas into water (9). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to inject a gas into the mixed water, wherein the injecting the gas includes injecting the gas into the density current after the deep seawater and the surface water are agitated. By applying Molini’s teaching of injecting gas into the water at the proximity of the opening of a conduit in Vondracek, it will result in the gas injection device being located downstream in the density current from the agitator included in the agitation device of Vondracek. This will also result in injecting the gas into the density current after the deep seawater and the surface water are agitated since the end of the conduit below the water surface in Vondracek is located downstream from the agitator. The motivation would have been to oxygenate the water.
As to Claim 10, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein the discharging the generated density current includes discharging the generated density current from a predetermined circular area (Paragraph 0036: “FIG. 5 displays a sample distribution of distribution systems 300 positioned at different locations along existing ocean currents in the Atlantic Basin to aid in distribution of the cool sea water at surface areas along the Atlantic Basin”. Such coordinates are in the Atlantic Basin).
As to Claim 12, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 11 (Refer to Claim 11 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein the injecting the gas (via Molini: 30) includes injecting the gas into seawater before the deep seawater and the surface water are agitated (The method step is capable of being performed in view of the structure).
As to Claim 14, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Vondracek as modified also teaches wherein a platform (22) is assisted by a cruising observation ship (It is inherent that the floating platform has to be towed by a ship).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondracek (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0257126) in view of Molini (U.S. Patent No. 5,009,069); and further in view of Finley (U.S. Patent No. 5,106,230).
As to Claim 8, Vondracek as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Vondracek as modified is silent about further comprising composite blades including pumping blades in the pump and introduction blades in the agitation device, wherein the pumping blades and the introduction blades are integral with each other, and wherein the composite blades are fixed to a single rotational shaft. Finley discloses a pump and agitation device (100) with composite blades (125) including pumping blades in the pump and introduction blades in the agitation device (Two of the blades can be interpreted as pumping blades and two other blades can be interpreted as agitation blades) and wherein the composite blades are fixed to a single rotational shaft (126). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide composite blades including pumping blades in the pump and introduction blades in the agitation device, wherein the pumping blades and the introduction blades are integral with each other, and wherein the composite blades are fixed to a single rotational shaft. The motivation would have been to propel the fluids in a desired direction.
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 EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM EST.
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, AMBER ANDERSON can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights