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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 7-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knox (US 3223388, hereinafter Knox).
Regarding claim 1, Knox discloses an apparatus for mixing a fluid mixture suitable for creating microbubbles, the apparatus comprising:
an elongated housing (figure, outer shell 1) extending in a longitudinal direction from a fluid inlet end (at ports 3) to a fluid outlet end (at port 5) wherein the elongated housing tapers from the fluid outlet end towards the fluid inlet end along the longitudinal direction such that a cross-sectional area of an interior of the housing decreases along the longitudinal direction between the fluid outlet end and the fluid inlet end (see figure); and,
one or more baffle plates (material 7) located within the interior of the housing, each of the one or more baffle plates shaped to disrupt a flow of fluid from the fluid inlet end to the fluid outlet end (any obstruction in the fluid flow would disrupt it to at least some degree).
Regarding claim 7, Knox discloses the housing comprises a lower (e.g. bottom) surface that extends generally in the longitudinal direction (see left side of outer shell 1 in figure) and an upper (e.g. top) surface that extends at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction (right side of outer shell 1). It is noted that a structure “extends generally in the longitudinal direction” even if it extends at an angle to that longitudinal direction. Further, it is noted that the orientation of the device of Knox does not affect its structure. The device of Knox could be oriented in such a way as to form a lower and upper surface as claimed without altering the device itself in any way, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claim 8, Knox discloses the longitudinal direction is horizontal and the upper surface extends in a direction that ascends as it extends in the longitudinal direction. As stated above, the orientation of the device of Knox does not affect its structure. The device of Knox could be oriented in such a way as to form the horizontal longitudinal direction as claimed without altering the device itself in any way, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claim 9, Knox discloses the housing is shaped to define a fluid inlet (ports 3) at the fluid inlet end.
Regarding claim 10, Knox discloses the fluid inlet (ports 3) is defined in an upper surface of the housing (see figure). It is noted that claims 9 and 10 are not in the same dependency chain as claims 7 and 8 which recite the orientation of the device. Thus, claims 9 and 10 do not require the limitations of claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 11, Knox discloses the housing is shaped to define a first fluid outlet (port 5) at the fluid outlet end for facilitating a first flow of fluid out of the housing
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji (US PGPub 2007/0217285, hereinafter Ji).
Regarding claim 18, Ji discloses a method for separating large air bubbles from a flow of fluid, the method comprising the steps of:
directing the flow of fluid (via feed stream 320 in figure 3) into a tank (item 300);
disrupting the flow of fluid inside the tank (via dividers 308a-e and agitators 312a-g) to create turbulence in the flow of fluid wherein the turbulence causes large air bubbles to form and separate from the flow of fluid;
directing large air bubbles formed from the turbulence to an upper fluid path (above dividers 308a-e) along an upper surface of the tank and to an exterior of the tank (via off gas 328); and
directing a remaining flow of fluid through a lower fluid path (under dividers 308a-e), the lower fluid path lower than the upper fluid path (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Ji discloses the upper fluid path is ascending as it extends towards the exterior of the tank (see figure 3, off gas 328 extends upwards).
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 2-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 3223388, hereinafter Knox) in view of Ji (US PGPub 2007/0217285, hereinafter Ji).
Regarding claim 2, Knox is silent to the upper aperture as recited. Ji teaches an apparatus including a housing and baffle plates (figure 3) wherein an interior surface of the housing and each of the one or more baffle plates are shaped to define an upper aperture located at a top of the interior of the housing and at a cross-sectional location corresponding to the baffle plate (see space above dividers 308a-e). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the substituted the baffle plates of Ji for those of Knox because the simple substitution of one known baffle plate for another would have provided only the predictable result of altering fluid flow through the device, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Knox is silent to the upper aperture as recited. Ji is relied upon, as above, to teach the upper aperture, and further to teach the upper aperture(s) located at the top of the interior of the housing facilitate an upper flow of fluid along an upper flow path along the top of the interior of the housing and through the upper aperture(s) from the fluid inlet end to the fluid outlet end (see space above dividers 308a-e). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the substituted the baffle plates of Ji for those of Knox because the simple substitution of one known baffle plate for another would have provided only the predictable result of altering fluid flow through the device, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 4, Knox is silent to the lower aperture as recited. Ji teaches an apparatus including a housing and baffle plates (figure 3) wherein the interior surface of the housing and each the one or more baffle plates are shaped to define a lower aperture located at a bottom of the interior of the housing and at a cross-sectional location corresponding to the baffle plate (see space below dividers 308a-e). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the substituted the baffle plates of Ji for those of Knox because the simple substitution of one known baffle plate for another would have provided only the predictable result of altering fluid flow through the device, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 5, Knox is silent to the lower aperture as recited. Ji is relied upon, as above, to teach the upper aperture, and further to teach the lower aperture(s) located at the bottom of the interior of the housing facilitate a lower flow of fluid along a lower flow path along the bottom of the interior of the housing nd through the lower aperture(s) from the fluid inlet end to the fluid outlet end (see space below dividers 308a-e). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the substituted the baffle plates of Ji for those of Knox because the simple substitution of one known baffle plate for another would have provided only the predictable result of altering fluid flow through the device, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 12, Knox is silent to the second fluid outlet line as recited. Ji teaches an apparatus including a housing shaped to define a first fluid outlet (figure 3, off gas 328) and a second fluid outlet (product 324) at the fluid outlet end for facilitating a second flow of fluid out of the housing. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Knox with the second fluid outlet of Ji for the purpose of removing additional components from the system more efficiently.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 3223388, hereinafter Knox) in view of Ji (US PGPub 2007/0217285, hereinafter Ji), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Morgan et al. (US 6817376, hereinafter Morgan).
Regarding claim 6, Knox is silent to a plurality of baffle plates and the lower apertures as recited. Ji teaches an apparatus including a plurality of baffle plates and lower apertures (see figure 3) but is silent to the lower apertures being on opposed transverse sides as recited. Morgan teaches an apparatus having a housing with a plurality of baffle plates (see figures 2A and 2B) wherein at least two of the plurality of baffle plates shaped to define their respective lower apertures at opposing transverse sides of the housing (see figures 3 and 4). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the combination of Knox and Ji with the opposite lower apertures of Morgan for the purpose of providing additional turbulence in the material by forcing it back and forth within the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 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.
Claims 13-17 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite specific configurations of the fluid outlets not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses devices having plates to crate turbulence in flowing fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights