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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specifically, the foreign references noted on pages 1 and 2 of the specification are not listed on the IDS submitted by applicant on July 8, 2024, nor have copies been submitted for the Examiner’s consideration.
Drawings
The drawings (12 sheets) were received on December 28, 2023. By virtue of their later filing date, they are considered to be replacements of the drawings (6 sheets) filed on August 18, 2023. The drawings, filed December 28, 2023 are unacceptable, since they include two sets of the same set of drawings (2 sets of 6 sheets each, each set including Figures 1-4, and 5A-5D). While one of the two sets of 6 sheets of drawings filed on December 28, 2023, includes drawing page numbering 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6, and 6/6, the other set of the two sets of 6 sheets of drawings filed on December 28, 2023 does not include the drawing page numbering. None of the drawing sheets, as filed on December 28, 2023, are identified as “Replacement Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 2, before line 34 of the specification, applicant should consider inserting the heading “Summary of the Invention”, to provide a clear line of demarcation within the specification between the invention and that which constitutes prior art relative to the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-16 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.
In claim 9, line 1, applicant introduces “an air-water stream”, then follows the recitation with “said mixture” on line 2, and “the water-air mixture” on lines 3 and 19 of claim 9. As such, “said mixture” on line 2, and “the water-air mixture” on lines 3 and 19 of claim 9, each lack antecedent basis, and render the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether or not applicant is referring to the same fluid stream or mixture by each of the differently worded recitations.
In claim 9, line 13, “said second filter” should apparently be replaced by --said third filter--, since the third expansion chamber is seen as following the third filter.
In claim 9, line 15, “the conical bushing” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 16, “the pressure” lacks antecedent basis, and also renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to what applicant is referring as having a pressure.
Line 18 of claim 9 is unclear relative to the phrase, “the inlet perforations have greater surface than the outlet perforations”. Is applicant attempting to claim that the cross-sectional area of the inlet perforations is greater than the cross-sectional area of the outlet perforations?
The last passage of claim 9 is unclear, since the inlet perforations and the outlet perforations are apparently part of the “first filter”, whereas the perforations extend through the first filter between the inlet surface and the outlet surface thereof, with the inlet and outlet of a given perforation being formed at the inlet surface and the outlet surface of the first filter and at the inlet end and the outlet end of the given perforation, respectively. As currently recited, the last passage would suggest that the inlet perforations and the outlet perforations are separate from the first filter and provide distinct structure through which the mixture flows to and from the first filter. Accordingly, the current claim language is confusing and should be clarified.
Further, with regard to lines 3-5 of claim 9, it is unclear as to what structures applicant is referring with respect to “an inlet” and “an outlet” as each having a plurality of perforations, being inlet perforations and outlet perforations, respectively. As currently recited, lines 3-5 of claim 9 appear to refer to the overall inlet and outlet of the device, rather than an inlet and an outlet of a given filter element within the device. This is particularly unclear when taken in view of the last three line of text of claim 9, wherein applicant refers to the inlet and outlet perforations that are apparently associated directly with the filter elements. Applicant should carefully amend the language of claim 9 to clarify the locations and functions of the inlet, outlet, inlet perforations, and outlet perforations.
In claim 10 is unclear relative to the phrase, “surface of the inlet perforations is greater than the surface of the outlet perforations”. Is applicant attempting to claim that the cross-sectional area of the inlet perforations is greater than the cross-sectional area of the outlet perforations? Also, in claim 10, the phrase, “to cause a conical cavity” should be replaced by “creating a conical cavity”, which would be read as structural, rather than functional, since the claim is drawn to an apparatus (The device of claim 9, wherein). Lastly, in claim 10, “the venturi type” lacks antecedent basis, and renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to what structure applicant is attempting to claim with respect to “the venturi type”.
Claim 11 appears to be redundant since claim 9, from which claim 11 directly depends, already requires that the first, second and third filters have the same characteristics and arrangement.
Claim 12 appears to be a meaningless claim, since it only requires that the filter elements have “predetermined” characteristics. Since it would be impossible to determine the characteristics of the filter elements after they were installed in the apparatus, the claim appears to lack any clear structural definition beyond that which is inherent to the filters of claim 9, from which claim 12 depends. Further, constructing an element in a manner appropriate for its intended purpose would hardly impart patentability to the element.
Claim 13 suffers from a similar lack of specificity as claim 12 for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 14 simply recites intended materials to be worked on by the claimed apparatus, which materials do not impart patentability to the apparatus, and unless applicant can demonstrate a clear preference of the apparatus to the claimed materials to be worked on, or an aversion by the apparatus to work on other unclaimed materials, such material recitations are not seen as further limiting the structure of the apparatus, as set forth by claim 9, from which claim 14 directly depends. Also, in claim 14, “the injected gas” and “the air-water mixture” each lack antecedent basis. Also, it is unclear as to the scope of the term “ozone atmospheric air”.
Claims 15 and 16 are “Use” claims, which do not recite any method steps and therefore are vague and indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q), wherein it is stated, “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “Use” claims that do not recite any process steps are not considered as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, as required by the statute.
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/005228 A1 taken together with ES 1146592 U, and further in view of KR 101756109 B1.
WO 2014/005228 A1 (Abstract; Figs. 1B, 3C-3G; page 10, lines 8-30; page 11, lines 9-20; page 12, lines 17-19; page 13, lines 8-9, 18; page 14, lines 23-25; claims 8, 12, 19) discloses a device for decreasing the size of bubbles within an air-liquid mixture, the mixture being pumped under pressure through a mixing zone (20a) to a cylindrical enclosure (12), the enclosure having a series (for example three) of identical perforated filter elements (24) (see page 13., lines 8-9) that occupy the cross-sectional area of the enclosure (12), each of the filter elements (24) being immediately followed in the direction of flow by an expansion chamber (26), the filter elements being configured and expansion chambers being arranged to provide for an exit stream of liquid with the desired dense cloud of uniform microbubbles. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application, would have envisaged determining the dimensions and characteristics (including the number and size of the perforations) of the filter elements as predetermined factors based upon the materials worked on by the device, and the flow parameters (flow rate and pressure) of the materials worked on to arrive at the desired product stream characteristics, such as bubble size and distribution within the liquid stream mixture (claims 9, and 11-13). It is noted that the WO ‘228 reference fails to disclose that the filter element perforations are formed as conical cavities, and that the pressure within the device is regulated by a pressure regulating valve disposed at the outlet of the device.
ES 1146592 U (English Abstract; Figs. 4 and 5) discloses a device for forming microbubbles and nanobubbles from a gas-liquid mixture fed to the device under pressure, the device including a plurality of space apart mesh elements (5) followed by empty cavities for production of a desired bubble filled liquid stream, the pressure of the fluids flowing through the device being maintained by a pressure regulating valve (6) including a ball (8) and conical bushing (7). Although not clearly illustrated by the figures of the reference, the valve would inherently include a valve adjustment means, such as a regulating wheel to allow for opening and closing of the valve. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the apparatus as taught by WO ‘228 to include a pressure regulating valve at the outlet end of the device, in view of ES ‘592, since such would ensure a uniform flow rate and pressure of the gas-liquid mixture through the device, thus providing a desired product stream having a uniform dense cloud of microbubbles within the fluid flowing from the device, thereby avoiding non-uniformity of the outlet stream due to fluctuating feed streams to the device. It is noted that the reference combination of WO ‘228 and ES ‘592 fails to disclose or suggest forming the perforations within the filter elements of the device in the shape of conical cavities.
KR 101756109 B1 (Figs. 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C; English machine translation) discloses a device for forming nanobubbles of ozone gas within a water stream (see page 5, line 13 of the machine translation) by passing the pressurized mixture through a series of perforated elements (see Technical Field on page 2 of the machine translation), the perforations being of a tapered conical shape, larger at the inlet to smaller at the outlet, to cause crushing of the mixture to form a mass of nanobubbles within the flowing mixture (see page 4, lines 7-16; page 7, lines 30-32 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious for an artisan, at the time of the filing of the application, provide the perforations within the spaced filter elements of the primary reference combination (WO ‘228 and ES ‘592) in the form of conical cavities, in view of the teaching by KR ‘109 that such perforations advantageously produce a mass of nanobubbles within a flowing, pressurized gas-liquid mixture, such as ozone gas within water.
With regard to the specific materials worked on by the device, the applied references clearly envisage air-water mixtures and ozone-water mixtures, which clearly anticipate the materials worked on as set forth by instant claim 14. Further, with regard to “use” claims (claims 15 and 16), one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it to have been entirely obvious to utilize the produced air-water or ozone-water mixtures of the applied prior art combination within any desired field of endeavor, including irrigation water treatment of instant claim 16, or the more broadly recited agricultural field of instant claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/2-1-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776