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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-25 are pending:
Claims 1-25 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 119 028, filed on 07/22/2021.
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 1-25 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. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claims 1 and 25.
Claims 1 and 25 recite “zones of high energy intensity”; the scope of the claim is unclear because the phrase “high energy intensity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy intensity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the particle size distribution”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 20, 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Conrad (US 2003/0044332).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad teaches a device (fluid contactor shown in Figs. 1-4) for influencing the flow of a flowable medium through a flow-through reactor, which has at least one inlet opening (inlet 14 in Fig. 1 but the invention is not limited to this inlet) through which a flowable medium can flow into the flow-through reactor and at least one outlet opening (outlet 26 in Fig. 1 but the invention is not limited to this outlet) through which a flowable medium can flow out of the flow-through reactor, comprising:
at least one energy source (ultrasound emitter 32 and additional UV bulbs 36a and 36b) adapted to change at least one property of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor by introducing energy, the intensity of which is non-uniformly distributed in the volume of the flow-through reactor (non-uniform distribution intensity due to localized placement of ultrasound emitter 32 and additional UV bulbs 36a and 36b),
wherein at least one mechanical component (baffles 18) positioned in the flow-through reactor and adapted to influence the flow of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor such that a majority of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor flows through the zones of high energy intensity generated by the energy source (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1,
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the energy source is adapted to change at least one property, other than temperature, of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor”, Conrad teaches ultrasound sources and ultraviolet sources, it is known that ultrasounds are adapted to impact acoustic pressure, intensity, velocity and thermal absorption and it is known that ultraviolet sources are adapted impact photochemical reactions such as chemical degradation/modification, molecular bonding changes and disinfection.
Regarding claim 4, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the energy source is adapted to change at least the particle size distribution of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor (both ultrasound sources and ultraviolet sources are inherently adapted to change particle size distribution).
Regarding claim 5, Conrad teaches the device in claim 1, wherein the mechanical component (i.e. baffles) is fixedly mounted so that its position, orientation and shape remain unchanged during operation of the device (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1,
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the mechanical component is adapted to cause an at least partially spiral movement of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor”, Conrad teaches angled baffles as shown in Fig. 4 which generate vortexes and rotational flow components, such repeated redirection results in at least a partial spiral or helical movement of flowable medium through the reactor.
Regarding claim 10, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical component (i.e. the baffles 18) comprises apertures, cutouts or openings (openings/apertures/cutouts are suggested in Fig. 1) in which one or more rod-shaped mechanical energy sources (i.e. ultraviolet bulbs 36a and 36b) are positioned (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein a fluid pressure of the flowable medium in the inner sparce of the flow-through reactor varies due to the flow influence caused by the mechanical component (the baffles 18 inherently produce this function because baffles are adapted to obstruct flow, create turbulence and change fluid direction which impacts pressure on tank walls).
Regarding claim 20, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one inlet opening (port 24) is positioned near the top edge of the flow-through reactor (port 24 is located along a side wall in the upper portion of the reactor, adjacent the top of fluid volume as shown in Fig 1 thus is reasonably interpreted as being near the top edge of the reactor).
Regarding claim 22, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one outlet opening (port 244) is positioned near the lower edge of the flow-through reactor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
With respect to limitation, “wherein a media pressure in the flow-through reactor is between 1.1 and 10 bar absolute”, the device of Conrad is capable of operating under that flow condition. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Note also MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 25, Conrad a method for influencing the flow of a flowable medium (the process/method is inherent when the system is in use) through a flow-through reactor (fluid contactor shown in Figs. 1-4), which has at least one inlet opening (inlet 14 in Fig. 1 but the invention is not limited to this inlet), through which a flowable medium can flow into the flow-through reactor, and at least one outlet opening (outlet 26 in Fig. 1 but the invention is not limited to this outlet), through which a flowable medium can flow out of the flow-through reactor, into which energy is introduced by means of at least one energy source (ultrasound emitter 32 and additional UV bulbs 36a and 36b) for changing at least one property of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor and the intensity of which is distributed non-uniformly in the volume of the flow-through reactor (non-uniform distribution intensity due to localized placement of ultrasound emitter 32 and additional UV bulbs 36a and 36b), wherein the flow of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor is influenced by at least one mechanical component (baffles 18) positioned in the flow-through reactor such that a majority of the flowable medium flowing through the flow-through reactor flows through the zones of high energy intensity generated by means of the energy source (see Fig. 1).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332).
Regarding claim 2, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
Conrad does not teach that the flow-through reactor has a volume of 0.2 liters to 5000 liters.
As for the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of criticality for the claimed volume of 0.2 liters to 5000 liters. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tank volume of Conrad by adjusting the tank volume to a volume, including a volume in the range of 0.2 liters to 5000 liters, because it is a mere change in size and/or form obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of treating a known volume. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Hielscher (USPN 9,713,803).
Regarding claim 13, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
wherein the energy introduced into the flow-through reactor from the energy source (i.e. ultrasonic emitter 32) is mechanical energy.
Conrad does not teach that the mechanical energy is in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations).
In a related field of endeavor, Hielscher teaches a method and system for sonicating liquids (see ABS) low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations) (a low frequency high energy ultrasound system having at least one sonotrode, see ABS; vibrating sonotrode 1, see C5/L10-20).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasonic emitter of Conrad configured as a low frequency high energy ultrasound system as disclosed by Hielscher because it is designed to reduce and suppress material erosion (Hielscher, see C2/L15-25).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Hielscher (USPN 9,011,698) and further in view of Ruecroft (US 2011/0288060).
Regarding claims 14-19, Conrad and Hielscher teach the device of claim 13, low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations) of at least 1000 watts (Hielscher, e.g. 8,000 Watts, see C5/L5-15; the prior art falls within the claimed range) and in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations) of at least 3000 watts (Hielscher, e.g. 8,000 Watts, see C5/L5-15; the prior art falls within the claimed range).
The combination does not teach that the energy source comprises at least two NFLUS resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations), that the energy source comprises at least three NFLUS resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations), that in the energy source comprises at least two non-parallel aligned NFLUS resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations), that the energy source comprises at least two off-center placed NFLUS resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations), that the energy source comprises at least two NFLUS resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations) of at least 1000 watts each and that at least two NFLUS resonators are adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency power ultrasonic vibrations (NFLUS vibrations) of at least 3000 watts each.
In a related field of endeavor, Ruecroft teaches an apparatus and process for producing crystals (see ABS) comprising at least two resonators (ultrasonic modules 6 are ultrasonic transducers, see ¶133; ultrasonic transducers act as electromechanical resonators) adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency (see ¶121), that the energy source comprises at least three resonators (ultrasonic modules 6) adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency (see ¶121), that in the energy source comprises at least two non-parallel aligned resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency (see Fig. 2), that the energy source comprises at least two off-center placed resonators adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency (see Fig. 2), that the energy source comprises at least two resonators (ultrasonic modules 6) adapted to introduce mechanical energy into the flow-through reactor in the form of low frequency (see ¶121).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the NFLUS resonator of Conrad (as modified by Hielscher) by duplicating said resonator and providing at least two or three resonators as disclosed by Ruecroft because the multiplicity amplifies the ultrasonic effect and aid in dissolution of fine particles (Ruecroft, see ¶155).
It is further obvious to modify the at least two or three NFLUS resonator of Conrad (as modified by Hielscher) by arranging in non-parallel aligned resonators and two off-center placed resonators as disclosed by Ruecroft because arranging at various locations allows for targeted treatment to enhance treatment efficiency therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success by arranging in any location, including two resonators non-parallel or off-center because it is within the level of one skilled in the art.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Tribelsky (US 2018 / 0303135).
Regarding claim 6, Conrad teaches the device in claim 1.
Conrad does not teach that the mechanical component is at least sectionally spiral, helical, or screw-shaped.
In a related field of endeavor, Tribelsky teaches a material processing by controllably generated acoustic effects (see ABS) comprising a mechanical component is at least sectionally spiral (spiral 108 or spiral 126).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mechanical component of Conrad by incorporating a spiral or helical mechanical component as disclosed by Tribelsky because these components are known to have geometries that influence flow patterns and enhance mixing efficiency (Tribelsky, see ¶32, ¶342 and ¶344).
Regarding claims 7-8, Conrad and Tribelsky teach the device according to claim 6, wherein the mechanical component has a non-constant pitch (Tribelsky, variable and pitch, see ¶170 and Fig. 2B); wherein the mechanical component (Tribelsky, i.e. spiral 108 or spiral 126) has a constant pitch (Tribelsky, constant pitch, see ¶24 and Fig. 3B).
Tribelsky further discloses the dimensions in mm of the non-constant pitch (values 79.00, 48.00 and 14.00 shown in Fig. 2B below) and constant pitch (values 28.00 and 28.00 shown in Fig. 3B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
126
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
264
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach the non-constant pitch between 50 millimeters and 500 millimeters, and the constant pitch between 50 millimeters and 500 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the non-constant pitch and the constant pitch values of Conrad (as disclosed by Tribelsky) by optimizing the pitch values, including selecting a range between 50 millimeters and 500 millimeters because higher pitch values result in greater spacing between spirals indicating steeper blade angles which result in increasing the speed and movement per revolution. Additionally, optimization is desirable in order to achieve sufficient mixing and homogenization (Tribelsky, see ¶173) thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success by optimizing the blade pitch values to achieve the desired performance. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Kalhoj (US 2015/0108071).
Regarding claim 12, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
Conrad does not teach a control valve for increasing the pressure of the flowable medium flowing out of the flow-through reactor by reducing a line cross-section is provided on an outlet side of the flow-through reactor.
In a related field of endeavor, Kalhoj teaches a treatment plant (see ABS) comprising a control valve (valve or throttle means 62) for increasing the pressure of the flowable medium flowing out of the flow-through reactor by reducing a line cross-section is provided on an outlet side of the flow-through reactor (valve or throttle means 62 placed just after the filter unit 20 and the first outlet 22 may provide an increased pressure within the filter during backwashing, see ¶118 and Fig. 2).
With respect to the limitation, “increasing the pressure…by reducing a line cross-section”, it is known that valves operate by restricting flow area, thereby increasing upstream pressure.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Conrad by incorporating the control valve on an outlet side as disclosed by Kalhoj because pressure is a known parameter affecting fluid processing and system operation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Kress (US 2016/0346758).
Regarding claim 21, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
Conrad does not teach that the flowable medium can flow largely tangentially into the flow-through reactor through at least one inlet opening.
In a related field of endeavor, Kress teaches a method and system for processing fluids (see ABS) wherein flowable medium can flow largely tangentially into the flow-through reactor through at least one inlet opening (inlet port positioned tangentially to the inner surface, see ¶47).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inlet of Conrad by positioning said inlet tangentially to an inner surface as disclosed by Kress because such configuration allows the fluid to form a vortex as it advances into the reactor body (Kress, see ¶47) which is a desirable flow pattern in Conrad (Conrad, see Figs. 1-3).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2003/0044332) in view of Hielscher (USPN 9,011,698).
Regarding claim 23, Conrad teaches the device according to claim 1.
Conrad further discloses that any suitable inlets and outlets can be provided to the container but does not particularly limit the number that can be used.
Conrad does not teach wherein the flow-through reactor has exactly one inlet opening through which a flowable medium can flow into the flow-through reactor and exactly one outlet opening through which a flowable medium can flow out of the flow-through reactor.
In a related field of endeavor, Hielscher teaches a method and device for changing the properties of at least one liquid medium (see ABS) comprising exactly one inlet and exactly one outlet (line 5 is connected to an inlet and/or outlet, see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Conrad by configuring exactly one inlet and exactly one outlet as disclosed by Hielscher because the selection of a single inlet and a single outlet among known configurations is an obvious design choice depending on system requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm 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, Benjamin L. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights