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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 7 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 7 recites “a pump”. It is not clear if this refers to a previous pump or a new pump. For examination purposes Examiner will consider either to meet the claim limitation.
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(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9995479 to Aho et al. (Aho) in view of U.S. PGPGUB 20060018420 to Tessien (Tessien).
Regarding claim 1, Aho teaches a cavitation engine (Figure 1) connected to a water supply (high pressure water in, Figure 1), and to a discharge pipe (steam output or unused water return, Figure 1), the cavitation engine being formed from an impact chamber (102, Figures 4, 18, and 19) having an impact surface (102a, Figures 18 and 19), a heater connected to the impact surface and being configured to heat the impact surface (19, Figure 4), and a fluid injector having an outlet positioned to inject hyperbaric liquid water onto the impact surface of the impact chamber at supersonic velocities such that cavitation bubbles are present in the injected water and steam is generated from impact of the cavitation bubbles with the impact surface and discharged into the discharge pipe (12, Figures 2, 18, and 19).
Aho is silent on a condensate storage tank connected to the discharge pipe and being configured to collect condensate from the discharge pipe, and a pump connected to the condensate storage tank via a pipe and being configured to pump the condensate out of the storage tank and back to the cavitation engine.
Tessien teaches a condensate storage tank connected to the discharge pipe and being configured to collect condensate from the discharge pipe (125, Figure 3), and a pump connected to the condensate storage tank via a pipe and being configured to pump the condensate out of the storage tank and back to the cavitation engine (115 or pump between 125 and 301, Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Aho with the teachings of Tessien to provide a condensate storage tank connected to the discharge pipe and being configured to collect condensate from the discharge pipe, and a pump connected to the condensate storage tank via a pipe and being configured to pump the condensate out of the storage tank and back to the cavitation engine. Doing so would allow the fluid to be recycled and provide connections for the inputs and outputs provided in Aho.
Regarding claim 2, Aho is silent on comprising a mixing tank connected to the pump and to the water supply for mixing water from the storage tank and the water supply, and an additional pump disposed between the mixing tank and the cavitation engine, the additional pump being configure for feeding water from the mixing tank to the cavitation engine.
Tessien teaches a mixing tank (301, Figure 3) connected to the pump and to the water supply for mixing water from the storage tank and the water supply (303 or other inlet to 301 by the vacuum pump, Figure 3, Paragraph 0037 discloses adding cavitation fluid to the tank 301 which is water in the case of Aho), and an additional pump disposed between the mixing tank and the cavitation engine, the additional pump being configure for feeding water from the mixing tank to the cavitation engine (115, Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Aho with the teachings of Tessien to provide a mixing tank connected to the pump and to the water supply for mixing water from the storage tank and the water supply, and an additional pump disposed between the mixing tank and the cavitation engine, the additional pump being configure for feeding water from the mixing tank to the cavitation engine. Doing so would allow the fluid to be recycled and provide connections for the inputs and outputs provided in Aho.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Aho teaches wherein the cavitation engine is connected to an electric power source (Aho, Col. 7 lines 4-9 in addition to power disclosed to operate the system), and further comprising a controller in the form of a computer processor that controls the heater and the fluid injector (Aho, Col. 3 lines 19-26 and Col. 7 lines 4-9 as well as control of the injectors and heaters disclosed throughout).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aho in view of Tessien and RU2096695 to Markov et al. (Markov).
Regarding claim 4, Aho is silent on wherein there are three of said cavitation engines, the cavitation engines being arranged in series and connected to a same discharge pipe.
Markov teaches multiple cavitation devices in series (12 and 9, Figure 1 and “The circuits can be equipped with additional cavitation heat generators, connected in series with the main one, and the heat generators can be made in the form of a venturi and / or valve type, and / or in the form of movable conical cavitators with slotted grooves”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide three cavitation engines in series, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Aho teaches wherein the system is configured to be connected to a steam supply and wherein steam from the cavitation engines mix with steam from the steam supply in the discharge pipe (Markov teaches a parallel orientation of cavitation engines. When applied to Aho this would create a steam supply from one cavitation engine which would be considered a steam supply which connects downstream of the cavitation engine).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Aho teaches wherein the cavitation engine is connected to a heat exchanger that converts steam from the cavitation engine to heated water, and wherein the heat exchanger is connected to a storage tank configured to store heated water for use in the structure (19, Figure 1 of Markov).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Aho teaches wherein the heat exchanger is connected to a pump that feeds water back to the cavitation engine (4, Figure 1 of Markov).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 prior art does not provide a reasonable combination to teach “wherein there are two of said cavitation engines connected to the discharge pipe and two of said additional pumps for feeding water to each of the cavitation engines from the mixing tank” in combination with the intervening claims. The prior art in general teaches one pump with valving to control flow through each cavitation engine not multiple pumps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762