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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 14NOV2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because of at least one of the following:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs (e.g. Figs. 1-3) will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The Applicant may alternatively provide black & white line drawings for Figs. 1-3. See MPEP 608.02.VIII.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figs. 2 #110,120
Fig. 3 #181
Please do not remove the reference sign, but instead add it to the description without adding new matter.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
System […] to introduce the oxygen enriched air into the fluid in claim 1, which is interpreted as 1) a pump with two feed lines (par. [0027]) or an air injection downstream a pump (par. [0029]).
microbubble releasing mechanism in claim 8, which is interpreted as 1) a valve or an orifice (par. [0033]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what structure is required or an intended use of the apparatus. The claim reads like a method claim and thus the claim scope is unclear.
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.
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) 1-2,4-6,8-14,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144).
Regarding claim 1, CHITTENDEN teaches a flotation apparatus (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #4);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #8);
an oxygen enrichment system comprised of:
an intake (Fig. 1 #60), and
a system for forming a fluid containing air (e.g. Fig. 1 #57,60);
a fluid feed region (Fig. 1 #10; C2/L23-26,47-50; C4/L18-27) capable of producing microbubbles; and
a collection device (Fig. 1 #24).
CHITTENDEN does not teach an oxygen enriching membrane. However, KOLODJI teaches a wastewater treatment apparatus (title, Figs.) that provides oxygen enriched air to a wastewater treatment aeration system including a membrane (abstract) that increases the amount of oxygen as permeate and decreases the amount of nitrogen as retentate (C3/L54-59,C4/L1-5).
KOLODJI teaches enriched air can improve wastewater treatment capacity and/or reduce power consumption (C1/L61-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the system of CHITTENDEN with an oxygen enriching membrane of KOLODJI in order to improve wastewater treatment. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Regarding claim 2, KOLODJI teaches an air compressor (Fig. 1 #12) compresses ambient air prior to being fed to the oxygen enrichment system.
Regarding claim 4, KOLODJI teaches the oxygen enrichment system includes an outlet for nitrogen removal (Fig. 1 #3; C4/L1-5).
Regarding claim 5, KOLODJI teaches the oxygen enriching membrane comprises hollow fiber membranes (C3/L54-59).
Regarding claims 6,9,16-17, the claim sets forth a method and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 8, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid feed region includes a microbubble releasing mechanism (e.g. valve, Fig. 1 #75) ahead of a fluid inlet into the treatment region.
Regarding claim 10, CHITTENDEN teaches the collection device is comprised of a movable paddle (Fig. 1 #24).
Regarding claim 11, CHITTENDEN teaches a waste collection compartment separate from the treatment region (Fig. 1 #36).
Regarding claim 12, CHITTENDEN teaches the apparatus further includes a treated fluid compartment (Fig. 1 #52).
Regarding claim 13, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid containing oxygen enriched air is comprised of treated fluid from the treated fluid compartment (e.g. a recycle loop; Fig. 1 #55).
Regarding claim 14, CHITTENDEN teaches a pump that is capable of providing sheer to oxygenated water (e.g. Fig. 1 #57 providing a pressure force on recycled water; C3/L32-33).
Regarding claim 18, CHITTENDEN teaches a flotation apparatus (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #4);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #8);
an oxygen enrichment system comprised of:
an intake (Fig. 1 #60), and
a system for forming a waste fluid containing air (e.g. Fig. 1 #10, which is downstream pump #57; C2/L13-26); and,
a collection device (Fig. 1 #24).
CHITTENDEN does not teach an oxygen enriching membrane. However, KOLODJI teaches a wastewater treatment apparatus (title, Figs.) that provides oxygen enriched air to a wastewater treatment aeration system including a membrane (abstract) that increases the amount of oxygen as permeate and decreases the amount of nitrogen as retentate (C3/L54-59,C4/L1-5).
KOLODJI teaches enriched air can improve wastewater treatment capacity and/or reduce power consumption (C1/L61-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the system of CHITTENDEN with an oxygen enriching membrane of KOLODJI in order to e.g. improve wastewater treatment capacity. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and GIFFORD (US 20180257961).
Regarding claim 3, CHITTENDEN’s modified device does not teach the oxygen enrichment system further includes an air pretreatment device. However, GIFFORD teaches e.g. wastewater treatment (par. [0138] on P10) including a source of an oxidizing agent fluidly connectable to a source of an aqueous solution (abstract), wherein the source of an oxidizing agent includes a gas separation system (par. [0015]) including a membrane separator module (par. [0172]) to selectively separate oxygen from air. The system further includes an air pretreatment device comprising a compressor, a filter, and a heater (par. [0175]) such that the enriched oxidizing agent is mixed with the aqueous solution forming microbubbles (par. [0126]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CHITTENDEN’s modified system with an oxygen enriching pretreatment device of GIFFORD in order to e.g. improve oxygen enrichment and microbubble formation (par. [0126]). The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of wastewater treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and MEYER (US 6344147).
Regarding claim 7, CHITTENDEN teaches the fluid feed region includes a fluid inlet (Fig. 3 #76) connected to a microbubble dispersion device with openings (Fig. 3 #16,18).
CHITTENDEN does not teach a fluid inlet located at a base of the treatment region. However, MEYER teaches a flotation plant (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #5);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #2);
an air intake (not shown; apparent that an air intake is necessary for providing air bubbles);
a collection device (Fig. 1 #9), and
a fluid feed region (tank bottom comprising air supply means, Fig. 1 #6; C2/L18-21) capable of producing microbubbles (C2/L35-38);
wherein the fluid feed region includes a fluid inlet (e.g. Fig. 4 #21) connected to a microbubble dispersion device (Fig. 4 #17) with openings (Fig. 4 #22) located at a base of the treatment region (Fig. 1).
MEYER teaches plate diffusers with openings provides substantially better results as compared to conventional air and pressure release flotations by e.g. avoiding coalescing of air bubbles (C2/L39-43,56-64).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHITTENDEN’s modified system with an inlet connected to a microbubble dispersion device with openings located at a base of the treatment region as taught by MEYER in order to improve microbubble flotation. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHITTENDEN (US 4216085) in view of KOLODJI (US 12179144) and FRISKY (US 20110266203).
Regarding claim 15, CHITTENDEN does not teach the apparatus is mobile and includes wheels. However, FRISKY teaches an apparatus for electrocoagulation (title, Figs.) including a diffused air flotation cell (Fig. 2 #130) and the apparatus is mobile and includes wheels (Figs. 1-2 #15) for the purpose of transporting a water treatment system in a decentralized water treatment plant, where water treatment can be moved from site to site (par. [0002,0004,0014]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHITTENDEN’s modified system to be mobile as taught by FRISKY in order to treat water from site to site. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of water treatment. See MPEP 2141 III (A) & (G).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ROSHANRAVAN (US 5492630) discloses an apparatus for dissolved air flotation with aeration (title, Figs.) comprising:
a treatment region (Fig. 1 #12);
a waste fluid inlet (Fig. 1 #38);
an oxygen enrichment system comprised of:
an intake (Fig. 1 #35; C2/L61-63), and
a system for forming a fluid containing air (e.g. Fig. 1 #24);
a fluid feed region (Fig. 2 #42); and
a collection device (Fig. 2 #54).
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~11:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights