Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/290,443

PIPE INSERT FOR GENERATING NANO-BUBBLES AND NANO-BUBBLE GENERATOR COMPRISING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 13, 2023
Examiner
MCKENZIE, THOMAS B
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Young Ho Yoo
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
551 granted / 961 resolved
-7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
91 currently pending
Career history
1052
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 961 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings filed January 09, 2026 are accepted, and are sufficient to overcome the previous objections. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1–3 and 6–8 in the reply filed on January 09, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the groups have structural similarities would prevent a serious search burden in examining the groups simultaneously. See Applicant Rem. dated January 09, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Groups I and II have structural differences that would result in a serious search burden in examining the claims simultaneously, because claim 4 of Group II requires the body has a spiral-shaped cross section while claims 1 and 3 of Group I do not require a body have a spiral-shaped cross-section. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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, 2, 6 and 7 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. Claim 1 recites: 1. A pipe insert for generating nano-bubbles as an insert inserted and installed into a plumbing pipe in the longitudinal direction, wherein to increase the friction surface of a gas-liquid mixed fluid for generating nano-bubbles in the pipe, the body of the insert is formed in a way that either or both of dividing walls configured to divide the fluid path space of the pipe, and space dividers configured to protrude into the fluid path space are formed continuously in the longitudinal direction of the pipe. Emphasis added. Claim 1 is indefinite because “the longitudinal direction” lacks antecedent basis. Note that a pipe does not inherently have a single “longitudinal direction” because pipes are not uniformly shaped, and therefore a pipe could have multiple axes that read on a “longitudinal axis.” See MPEP 2173.05(e). To overcome this rejection, claim 1 could be rewritten as: 1. A pipe insert for generating nano-bubbles as an insert inserted and installed into a plumbing pipe in [[the]] a longitudinal direction, wherein to increase the friction surface of a gas-liquid mixed fluid for generating nano-bubbles in the pipe, the body of the insert is formed in a way that either or both of dividing walls configured to divide the fluid path space of the pipe, and space dividers configured to protrude into the fluid path space are formed continuously in the longitudinal direction of the pipe. Claims 2, 6 and 7 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1. Also, claim 2 recites: 2. The pipe insert of claim 1, wherein the body of the insert is surrounded by the main wall, and one or more spacer protrusions for maintaining the gap between the main wall and the inner wall of the pipe are formed continuously around the main wall in the longitudinal direction of the pipe. Emphasis added. Claim 2 is indefinite because “the main wall” and “the gap” and “the inner wall” lack antecedent basis. Note that a pipe does not inherently have a single “inner wall” because it could contain multiple interior wall structures. Claim 2 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the pipe inserted can have a single spacer protrusion as the claim initially says that the pipe insert has “one or more spacer protrusions” (implying a single protrusion is possible) but then says that the spacer protrusions “are formed continuously” (implying that the pipe insert has multiple spacer protrusions). To overcome the rejections, claim 2 could be amended to read: 2. The pipe insert of claim 1, wherein the body of the insert is surrounded by [[the]] a main wall, and one or more spacer protrusions for maintaining [[the]] a gap between the main wall and [[the]] an inner wall of the pipe Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couture, US 5,779,8861. Regarding claim 1, Couture teaches a media element 10, which reads on the claimed “pipe insert.” See Couture Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 20–27. The preamble limitation that the pipe insert is “for generating nano-bubbles as an insert inserted and installed into a plumbing pipe” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets froth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention). The media element 10 has a “body,” as claimed, which is the structure of the media element 10 of the ribs 14 and fins 20, 22. The “body” is formed in a way that the ribs 14 (“dividing walls”) are capable of dividing a fluid path space of a pipe, as claimed, because the media element 10 is generally tubular with space being formed between the ribs 14. See Couture Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 21–34. The “body” is also formed in a way that the fins 20, 22 (“space dividers”) are capable of protruding into a fluid space, as claimed, because the fins 20, 22 extend into the spaces between ribs 14. Id. The ribs 14 and fins 20, 22 are formed continuously in a longitudinal direction, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1. Note that the media element 10 of Couture is presumed capable of performing the function of increasing “the friction surface of a gas-liquid mixed fluid for generating nano-bubbles in the pipe” because it has the same structure as the claimed “pipe insert.” See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent). Note also that the “plumbing pipe” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus because the apparatus is to a “pipe insert” instead of a plumbing pipe containing the pipe insert. Therefore, limitations describing the “plumbing pipe” (or “pipe”) fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements). PNG media_image1.png 914 845 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Couture teaches that the “body” (ribs 14 and fins 20, 22) are surrounded by extending portions 27, 29, which collectively read on the “main wall.” See Couture Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 40–44. Note that a wall is structure that divides an area, while a wall can have gaps in it. The extending portions 27, 29 form a “main wall” because they collectively form a structure that divides the media element 10 into the space interior and exterior of the extending portions 27, 29, as seen in Fig. 2. The media element 10 also comprises vanes 26, 28, 30 (“spacer protrusions”) formed continuously around the extending portions 27, 29 in the longitudinal direction. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 40–44. The vanes 26, 28, 30 are capable of maintaining a gap between the “main wall” formed by extending portions 27, 29 and an inner wall of a pipe because the vanes 26, 28, 30 have structure sticking out from the extending portions 27, 29, as seen in Fig. 2. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). Regarding claim 3, Couture teaches a media element 10, which reads on the claimed “pipe insert.” See Couture Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 20–27. The preamble limitation that the pipe insert is “for generating nano-bubbles as an insert inserted and installed into a plumbing pipe” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets froth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention). The media element 10 comprises a “main body” formed of ribs 14. See Couture Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 20–44. The “main body” is configured to form “one or more sectional spaces,” as claimed, which are the spaces between the ribs 14, as seen in Fig. 2. The media element 10 also comprises fins 20, 22 that are inserted into the spaces between the ribs 14, with the fins 20, 22 extending longitudinally. Id. The fins 20, 22 read on the “one or more sub bodies inserted into the sectional spaces of the main body longitudinally.” The “main body” comprises the ribs 14, which read on the “dividing walls.” See Couture Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 20–44. The ribs 14 are capable of dividing a fluid path space of a pipe, as claimed, because the ribs 14 act as dividers with space in between, as seen in Fig. 2. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). The “sub body” comprises the fins 20, 22, which read on the “space dividers.” The fins 20, 22 are capable of protruding into a fluid path space of a pipe, as claimed, because the fins 20, 22 extend into the space between ribs 14, as seen in Fig. 2. Note that the media element 10 of Couture is presumed capable of performing the function of increasing “the friction surface of a gas-liquid mixed fluid for generating nano-bubbles in the pipe” because it has the same structure as the claimed “pipe insert.” See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent). Note also that the “plumbing pipe” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus because the apparatus is to a “pipe insert” instead of a plumbing pipe containing the pipe insert. Therefore, limitations describing the “plumbing pipe” (or “pipe”) fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements). 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. Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flournoy et al., US 2007/0102354 A1 in view of Couture, US 5,779,886 and in further view of Nelson, US 2009/0206497 A1. Regarding claims 6–8, Flournoy teaches a wastewater treatment system 10 comprising at least bubble generator 28 to provide fine bubbles into water within the system 10 for mixing or aeration within a biological reactor 12. See Flournoy Fig. 1, [0059], [0078]. While Flournoy is silent the bubbles being “nano-bubbles,” Nelson teaches an aeration pod 100 that generates nano-bubbles or fine bubbles, for use in liquid waste aeration. See Nelson Fig. 1a, [0043]. It would have been obvious to use the aeration pod 100 of Nelson as the bubble generator 28 of Flournoy because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B. With this modification, the wastewater treatment system 10 reads on the claimed “nano-bubble generator” because it comprises the aeration pod 100 that is capable of generating nanobubbles. Flournoy as modified differs from claims 6–8 because it is silent as to the wastewater treatment system 10 comprising the “pipe insert” of claims 1, 2 or 3, as claimed. But Flournoy teaches that the wastewater treatment system 10 comprises rotating biological contactors 14. See Flournoy Fig.1, [0025], [0039]. With this in mind, Couture teaches a media element 10 that can be used as a rotating biological contactor for a sewage treatment device. See Couture Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 39–45, col. 2, ll. 15–19. The media element 10 is beneficial because it has increased surface area in contact with effluent compared to conventional media. Id. at col. 1, ll. 27–32. It would have been obvious to use the media element 10 of Couture as any one of the rotating biological contactors 14 of Flournoy as modified to increase the surface area in contact with effluent, with this modification also representing the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B. The media element 10 of Couture reads on the “pipe insert for generating nano-bubbles according to” claims 1, 2 or 3, as explained in the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 3 above. Note that claims 6–8 do not require that the pipe insert is actually inserted into a pipe or is used to generate nano-bubbles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM. 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. T. BENNETT MCKENZIE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1776 /T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 1 Couture is an “X” reference listed in the International Search Report filed November 27, 2024.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599854
FILTRATION DEVICE, FILTRATION METHOD AND FILTRATION FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600661
FIBERGLASS FILTER ELEMENT CONTAINING ZINC OXIDE-BASED COMPOSITE NANOPARTICLES AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595775
A UNIDIRECTIONAL FUEL NOZZLE FOR IMPROVING FUEL ATOMIZATION IN A CARBURETOR OR SIMILAR APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589342
Filter Sheet Media and Method for Manufacturing a Filter Sheet Media
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582927
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DEGASSING A DEVICE, AND CORRESPONDING TEST SYSTEM FOR GAS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+22.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 961 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month