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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Applicant has misnumbered claims 15 and 20 as 2 and 3, which have been renumbered to 15 and 20, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bigelow et al, “ Optimization of Ultrasonic Drying Rate and Efficiency for Spacecraft Solid Waste Management,” 51st International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES-2022-218), 10-14 July 2022, St. Paul, Minnesota.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 15: Bigelow teaches a receptacle like a stainless steel mesh having piezoelectric transducers attached thereto, and simulated feces filled in a bag on or in the receptacle. See the experimental set up and other figures. Figure shows the amplifier and other details. The paper is on an optimization study for drying rate and efficiency. The details show the study is on target configuration associated with water removal. While Bigelow does not explicitly state that the voltage is AC, such is implied, or at the least obvious.
Claims 2, 16: the bag is a membrane bag that permeates water mist.
Claims 3, 17: see piezoelectric rings attached to the both sides of the mesh. Regarding removable, this is implied because the whole thing is an experimental set up.
Claims 4, 18: piezoelectric transducers integral with flexible bladders: while Bigelow is silent on this, making integral or separable is prima facie obvious – MPP 2144.04.
Claims 5, 9, 11-14, 19: recite process variables and how the process works, and are not patentable for the apparatus claims. Sterilizing water and the solid matter are inherent.
Claims 6-8: attaching the piezoelectric transducers/assemblies to the bladder (the membrane bag is flexible) walls instead of the stainless steel mesh is only a rearrangement of parts, which is prima facie obvious unless otherwise shown. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 1, 9, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choong et al, “Ultrasonic Atomiser[sic] System Performance Characterisation[sic] Study for Water Purification System Development,” Transactions of Science and Technology, 2021, 8(3-2), 239-244.
PNG
media_image2.png
224
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As depicted in the figure copied herein, Choong teaches the apparatus and the process as claimed in these claims. The receptacle in the figure has ultrasonic transducer, which mystifies the water from the “substance” (raw water), the mist is collected through an outlet, and condensed into a container.
Choong teaches using only one transducer, but having more than one is prima facie obvious for increased capacity, etc.
The details of the piezoelectric transducer and the amplifier are as claimed to provide the same function as claimed.
Rejection of the claims depending from claim 1 are similar to that in rejection 1.
Claims 1, 9, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsuura et al., (US 2005/0016380)
PNG
media_image3.png
603
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 15 and 20: Matsuura teaches the process and the apparatus as claimed. See fig. 29 and other figures. Plurality of transducers are used, and the mist is condensed and collected separately in a container.
Rejection of the claims depending from claim 1 are similar to that in rejection 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 recites ports coupling the receptacle and the storage container, with the ports having a second set of transducers for sterilizing the water mist, which is not taught by the prior arts. Choong does teach that the ultrasonic would disinfect the water, which is also well-known, but fails to teach the structure in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights