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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because Paragraph 0036 uses “PTE module” to refer to the part 6 in figure 4, without previously defining the meaning of the acronym “PTE”. 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to set forth 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 3 recites “wherein the ratio of the volume of the metallic fins (10) and the thickness and height of the flow channel (11) and the channel wall (12) is in the range of 2:3 to 9:10.” However, the claim fails to clearly specify what quantities form the numerator and denominator of the recited ratio, and further fails to explain how a volumetric quantity is mathematically related to linear dimensions such as thickness and height. Additionally, the claim does not specify how or where the volume, thickness, and height are measured, nor whether the ratio applies to individual fins, individual flow channel, or the system as a whole.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya U.S. Pub. No. 20210146320 A1, May 20, 2021 (hereinafter “Tsuchiya”) in view of Wright et al. US 5584183 A, December 17, 1996 (hereinafter “Wright”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya discloses n ultrafine nanobubble generating apparatus comprising: a liquid discharger (pump) for discharging liquid (paragraphs 0068-0072), a gas incorporating device that pressurizes gas and mixes it into liquid downstream of the pump (paragraphs 0081-0084), an ultrafine bubble generator/nozzle through which gas-containing liquid passes to generate nanobubbles (paragraphs 0036-0038, 0066-0067), a liquid flow path system including branched pipes and recombination (paragraphs 0057-0059). However, Tsuchiya fails to teach a thermoelectric heat transfer unit, dual hot and cold flow channels, metallic fins inside channel and a Peltier element module producing temperature differential. Wright discloses a thermoelectric heat exchanger comprising: two fluid-bearing channels (fig.1, two channels 14) arranged on opposite of the thermoelectric modules (col. 2, lines 42-25, fig. 1, thermoelectric units 12), as series of thermoelectric units sandwiched between channels (col.2, lines 40-45), metallic heat transfer fins (fig. 1, fins 16) inside each channels, the fins are constructed of a thermally conductive metal, preferably aluminum. Other suitable metals include copper, iron, nickel, and their alloys. Metallic fins brazed to inner channel surfaces to increase heat transfer area (col. 3, lines 1-5), thermally conductive interfaces between Peltier units and channels (col. 4, lines 44-50), counter fluid arrangement for heat exchange (fig. 1, heat exchanger 10). Wright further discloses electrical current supplied to thermoelectric units to produce heating and cooling via Peltier effect (col. 2, lines 50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wright’s thermoelectric dual-channel heating/cooling structure to Tsuchiya’s gas saturated liquid stream in order to induce controlled supersaturation via temperature differential, promote nucleation of nanobubbles and provide an alternative to purely mechanical pressure-based bubble formation. Wright expressly teaches a compact thermoelectric structure capable of producing simultaneous hot and cold liquid streams with high-efficient metallic fins. Temperature variation is a known parameter influencing gas solubility and bubble formation, combining known heat-exchange technology with known gas dissolution systems represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to enhance bubble generation efficiency and control.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya fails to disclose the series of metallic fins and the heat conducting plates extend along the length of the flow channels. However, Wright discloses a thermoelectric module (12) sandwiched between channels (14), ceramic insulators (22), thin thermally conductive interface material (24) between modules and channels (fig. 1, col.2, lines 60-67). The channels themselves serve as continuous thermally conductive plates extending along the length of the heat exchanger core. The thermoelectric modules are arranged in series along the length of the channels (col. 2, lines 41-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the metallic fin and thermally conductive plates to extend along the channel length to maximize heat transfer area, ensure uniform temperature gradient and improve efficiency of thermal exchange.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya fails to disclose the ratio of the volume of the metallic fins (10) and the thickness and height of the flow channel (11) and the channel wall (12) is in the range of 2:3 to 9:10. However, Wright discloses heat transfer fins inside channel, Fin density ranges from 100-1000 sq ft per cubic ft of channel volume, typical fin thickness ranges from 0.004-0.01 inches, channel height ranges from 0.125-0.5 inches, fin spacing and pitch selected based on performance and pressure drop consideration (col. 3, lines 11-50). Wright further discloses that the metallic fin design depends upon heat transfer efficiency, compactness, allowable pressure-drop, and manufacturability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a ratio of fin volume relative to channel thickness and height within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization to achieve desired thermal performance and pressure-drop characteristics. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, Wright discloses that the length of the internal heat transfer channel whose length is determined by cooling capacity requirements and inlet and outlet manifolds for fluid distribution (fig. 2, col. 4). Tsuchiya discloses inlet and outlet flow path regions within a nanobubble generating system (fig. 1). The relative proportion between inlet/outlet regions and the internal processing channels constitutes a matter of dimensional scaling to achieve desired heat transfer and pressure-drop characteristics. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.04, modifying the relative size or proportion of components that perform the same function as in the prior art constitutes an obvious design choice absent evidence of criticality. Also, as internal channel length is a result-effective variable affecting heat transfer capacity, optimizing the ratio of inlet/outlet relative to channel length would have been obvious under MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, selecting a proportion in which the inlet and outlet are more than three times smaller than the internal channel length would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuchiya discloses that the invention is not limited thereto, and use may be made of pure water or ultrapure water, an aqueous solution containing a solid or gaseous substance dissolved therein, turbid water containing a crystalline body, a mineral, an organic substance or the like mixed therein, or a mixed water in which water is mixed with another liquid substance (e.g., a liquid medical agent or a fertilizer) (paragraph 0046). Selecting a liquid other than water constitutes substitution of one known working fluid for another known equivalent performing the same function. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuchiya discloses a gas incorporating device (fig. 2, paragraph 0083, gas incorporating device 40) includes a pressurized gas generation source (41) that is a generation source of pressurized gas and a gas incorporating device body (42). Tsuchiya further discloses the examples of gas generated by the pressurized gas generation source (41) include air, oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, carbon dioxide and ozone (paragraph 0083). Selecting one of these known gases represent selection among known alternatives performing the same function.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya fails to disclose that the flow channel may be cylinder or cuboid and the flow channel contacting plate matches the inner shape of the flow channel. The system of claim 1, wherein the temperature difference between the hot stream flow channel and the cold stream flow channel is in the range of temperature between the freezing point and the boiling point of the working liquid flowing through the system.7. The system of claim 1, wherein the flow channel may be cylinder or cuboid and the flow channel contacting plate matches the inner shape of the flow channel. The system of claim 1, wherein the temperature difference between the hot stream flow channel and the cold stream flow channel is in the range of temperature between the freezing point and the boiling point of the working liquid flowing through the system. However, Wright disclose rectangular (cuboid) flow channels (14) for fluid heat exchange and thermoelectric modules thermally coupled to the channel walls (col. 2, lines 58-63). Providing cylindrical or cuboid flow channels constitute a matter of geometric design choice, as both shapes perform the same fluid conveying function. MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, ensuring that a contacting plate matches the inner shape of the channel represent routine engineering practice to maintain effective thermal contact. Additionally, operating the system such that the temperature differential between hot and cold streams remains between the freezing and boiling points of the working liquid corresponds to liquid-phase operating limits and represents optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya discloses processing liquid streams, including water-based systems, for nanobubble generation but fails to disclose the temperature difference between the hot stream flow channel and the cold stream flow channel of a water stream is in the range of 5oC to 80oC. Wright discloses a thermoelectric heat exchanger capable of producing adjustable temperature differentials between fluid channels through control of electrical current supplied to thermoelectric modules (col. 2, lines 52-65). Temperature differential is a result-effective variable affecting gas solubility and bubble formation. Selecting a temperature difference between 5oC and 80oC for water constitute routine optimization within normal liquid-p1hase operating limits. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, discovering optimum or workable range through experimentation is ordinarily obvious absent evidence of criticality.
Regarding claim 9, Tsuchiya fails to disclose that the number of metallic fins is in the range of 15 to 40 for larger flow rates and higher heat loads. Wright discloses metallic fins disposed within the flow channels and teaches that fin density and configurations are selected based on cooling capacity, heat load, and pressure drop (col. 3, lines 25-55). Because the number of fins directly affects heat transfer surface area and thermal performance, fin count constitutes a result-effective variable. Selecting a number of metallic fins in the range of 15-40 for larger flower rates and higher heat loads represent routine optimization of known structural parameters to achieve desired thermal performance. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Wright discloses thermoelectric modules supplied with electrical current to create heating and cooling via the Peltier effect (col.1, lines 28-35). Applying current requires “switching on” the module. Wright discloses dual channels (14) separated by thermoelectric modules (12), heating on one side and cooling on the other, metallic fins (16) inside each channel for heat transfer (col. 2, lines 41-65). Hence, thermally heating fins in a first channel and thermally cooling fins in a second. Tsuchiya discloses incorporating pressurized gas into liquid and passing the gas-containing liquid through a processing path to generate ultrafine bubbles. Tsuchiya further discloses the flow path structures including recombination (paragraph 0070-0072). Combining heated and cooled gas saturated streams would predictably create supersaturation conditions due to temperature-dependent gas solubility, promoting bubble nucleation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date oof the claimed invention to apply Wright’s thermoelectric dual-channel structure to Tsuchiya’s gas-saturated liquid system to induce controlled temperature differential and promote nanobubble formation. Operating below boiling and above freezing corresponds to standard liquid-phase operating conditions for water and other working liquids. Operating within liquid-phase temperature limits represents routine system control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776