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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1-27-2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12,15,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French reference(FR2754467) taken together with Hopkins(6241809).
French reference in figure 2 teaches a scrubber for scrubbing pollutants from polluted waste comprising a first container(tank R1) having a side wall, a bottom wall, and a top wall for containing the polluted waste, the first container comprising an inlet(exhaust pipe inlet in figure 2) and at least one opening(unnumbered gas outlet opening in figure 2), and a second container(tank R2) having a side wall, a bottom wall, and a top wall for containing chemicals, wherein the second container comprises an outlet(unnumbered gas outlet opening in figure 2) for releasing clean air and at least one slotted pipe(multi slotted pipe in figure 2) coupled to the at least one opening(noting piping connecting the at least one opening to the slotted pipe) submerged in the chemicals. French reference is silent as to wherein the second container further comprises an angled plate attached to the side wall of the second container above the scavenger chemicals for condensing a treated gas released from the scavenger chemicals back into the scavenger chemicals.
Hopkins in figure 3 teaches a scrubber(scrubbing module 40 within enclosed container 46) for scrubbing pollutants from polluted waste(polluted air flow inlet 58), the scrubber including a scrubbing compartment(41) for contacting water or cleaning liquid onto polluted air, and wherein the container (46) further includes an angled plate(angled perforated plate 106) attached to a side wall of the container above the scrubbing compartment(41) for condensing a treated gas released from the water or cleaning liquid. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an angled plate attached to the side wall of the second container(R2) of French reference and located above the chemicals of the second container in order to provide a mechanism for any droplets carried in the gas of the second container of French reference to impact the angled plate and coalesce or collect into larger drops on the underside of the angled plate and permit collected liquid to drain back into the second container(column 11 lines 57-65 of Hopkins).
French reference is further silent as to the second container for containing scavenger chemicals. Hopkins teaches a scrubber(scrubbing module 40 within enclosed container 46) for scrubbing pollutants from polluted waste(polluted air flow inlet 58), the scrubber including a scrubbing compartment(41) for contacting water or cleaning liquid onto polluted air. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second container (R2) of French reference with scavenger chemicals (cleaning liquid of Hopkins) in order to provide a mechanism for contacting gas flow exiting from the slotted pipe in container R2 with scavenger chemicals for treating gas flow pollutants. Examiner respectfully submits that substitution of scavenger chemicals for liquid deodorizing solution for container R2 of French reference would have been an obvious modification, wherein patentability of an apparatus claim is based on the structure of the claimed apparatus, wherein a container R2 of French reference clearly has a capability of containing any scavenger chemicals.
With regards to claim 2, French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches wherein the first container comprises a plurality of openings(inlet gas opening and outlet gas opening in French reference), but is silent as to the second container comprises a plurality slotted pipes, each of the plurality of pipes coupled to one of the plurality of openings. Examiner respectfully submits that sparging containers which include a plurality of slotted pipes are well known in gas/liquid contacting technologies, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of pipes coupled to the gas outlet opening of the tank R1 of French reference in order to provide for increased area for dispersion of gas flow into scavenger chemicals of French reference taken together with Hopkins.
With regards to claim 3, French reference taken together with Hopkins further teaches wherein each of the at least one slotted pipe comprises a series of bottom facing slots(noting slots in French reference placed along a circumference of slotted pipe with a plurality of slots including bottom facing slots).
With regards to claim 12, French reference taken together with Hopkins further teaches wherein the first container comprises an inlet pipe directly coupled to the inlet. Examiner notes the limitations “for directly attaching to a vacuum truck” represent an intended use for the inlet pipe, and therefore the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis.
With regards to claim 15, French reference taken together with Hopkins further teaches wherein each of the first container and the second container comprises a drain pipe(noting unnumbered drain pipes in figure 2 of French reference) on the bottom wall for draining deposits.
With regards to claim 16, French reference taken together with Hopkins further teaches wherein the polluted waste is polluted gas(from exhaust pipe in figure 2 of French reference) and the pollutants include hydrogen sulfide(noting hydrogen sulfide is a common component of exhaust gas).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 13,14 are 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.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the second container further comprises a plurality of angled baffles within the second container and attached to the top wall of the second container.”. French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a second container, however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the second container further comprises a plurality of angled baffles within the second container and attached to the top wall of the second container. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 4 into claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the angled plate has a free side extending downwards toward the scavenger chemicals so that the angled plate forms an acute angle with respect to the side wall of the second container.”. French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a second container, the second container including an angled plate, however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the angled plate has a free side extending downwards toward the scavenger chemicals so that the angled plate forms an acute angle with respect to the side wall of the second container.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the second container further comprises a second inlet pipe located under the angled plate, the second inlet pipe having an open end extending to outside of the second container for taking the polluted waster and a horizontal portion submerged in the scavenger chemicals for releasing the polluted waste into the scavenger chemicals.” French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a second container, the second container including an angled plate however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the second container further comprises a second inlet pipe located under the angled plate, the second inlet pipe having an open end extending to outside of the second container for taking the polluted waster and a horizontal portion submerged in the scavenger chemicals for releasing the polluted waste into the scavenger chemicals. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 7 into claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the second container further comprises a monitoring pipe made of transparent or translucent material visible from outside the second container and in fluid communication with the scavenger chemicals inside the second container. “. French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a second container , however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the second container further comprises a monitoring pipe made of transparent or translucent material visible from outside the second container and in fluid communication with the scavenger chemicals inside the second container.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first container has a shared portion on the side wall shared with a portion of the side wall of the second container.”. French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a separate first container and a separate second container, however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the first container has a shared portion on the side wall shared with a portion of the side wall of the second container. Claim 11 depends on claim 10 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 10 into claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the first container further comprises a baffle arranged above the at least one opening, the baffle forming an entrance for guiding the polluted waste to enter the at least one opening.”. French reference taken together with Hopkins teaches a scrubber including a first container including at least one opening, however French reference taken together with Hopkins does not teach or suggest wherein the first container further comprises a baffle arranged above the at least one opening, the baffle forming an entrance for guiding the polluted waste to enter the at least one opening. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 13 into claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
February 25, 2026