DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 10/11/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 10/11/2022, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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(s) (IDS) submitted on 29 JANUARY 2024, 17 APRIL 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,934,180 B1 (hereinafter “Morrill”) as evidenced by US 2021/0246054 (hereinafter “Flammang”).
Regarding Claim 1 Morrill discloses a method of treating water, comprising:
passing the water through a conduit having two sets of internal deflectors 700, 800 at opposite ends of the conduit, with a central portion of the conduit (around 405) being unobstructed; and
whereby the water cavitates as it passes the around the sets of deflectors (C21/L50-C23/L2), and returns towards laminar flow between the sets of reflectors (where the absence of any material or baffles between 700 and 800 will cause the water to inherently return toward laminar flow, See MPEP 2112.02.);
whereby the water exiting the conduit will inherently have reduced surface tension compared to the water entering the conduit, because cavitation inherently reduces the surface tension of the water as evidenced by Flammang [0027], and the instant disclosure at [0029].
PNG
media_image1.png
389
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the water has increased hydrogen ionization after passing through the tube; because cavitation inherently increases negative hydrogen ions (i.e. hydrogen ionization) in the water as evidenced by Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15, and the instant disclosure at [0029].
Regarding Claim 3 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein electron activation of the water increases as the water passes through the tube; because cavitation inherently increases negative hydrogen ion in the water, which increases electron activity, as evidenced by Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15, and the instant disclosure at [0029].
Regarding Claim 4 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the water exiting the tube has decreased water molecule clusters; because cavitation inherently reduces the size of clustered molecules of water as evidenced by Flammang [0030], and the instant disclosure at [0032].
Regarding Claim 5 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are round (Morrill Figs. 37, 45-46).
Regarding Claim 15 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses a method of treating water, comprising: directing the water through a tube; and flowing the water around a first set of deflectors 700 in the tube to create a first cavitation zone, then flowing the water through the tube in a non-cavitation zone (around 405), then flowing the water around a second set of deflectors 800 in the tube to create a second cavitation zone, whereby the sequential cavitation zones separated by the non-cavitation zone reduces surface tension of molecules in the water; because cavitation inherently reduces the surface tension of the water as evidenced by Flammang [0027], and the instant disclosure at [0029].
Regarding Claim 17 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the treated water will inherently have increased negative hydrogen ions; because cavitation inherently increases negative hydrogen ion in the water as evidenced by Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15, and the instant disclosure at [0029].
Regarding Claim 18 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 17 wherein the treated water will inherently have increased electron activity; because cavitation inherently increases negative hydrogen ion in the water, which increases electron activity, as evidenced by Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15, and the instant disclosure at [0029].
Regarding Claim 19 Morrill as evidenced by Flammang discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the treated water will inherently have reduced molecular clusters; because cavitation inherently reduces the size of clustered molecules of water as evidenced by Flammang [0030], and the instant disclosure at [0032].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0246054 (hereinafter “Flammang”) in view of US 2007/0235379 A1 (hereinafter “Suddath”).
Regarding Claim 1 Flammang discloses a method of treating water, comprising:
passing the water through a conduit having a plurality of sets of internal deflectors at opposite ends of the conduit and throughout the conduit; and whereby the water cavitates as it passes the around the sets of deflectors (i.e. the offset rows of 2 deflectors are each a set); whereby the water exiting the conduit has reduced surface tension compared to the water entering the conduit; Abstract, Figs. 4-5; [0018], [0027]-[0031].
Flammang does not disclose a central portion of the conduit being unobstructed between two sets of deflectors, and returns towards laminar flow between the sets of reflectors.
However Suddath discloses a method and device for treating water with baffles formed of spheres/balls to create vortices, in order to improve the water such as to lower the surface tension (Abstract, [0026]-[0040]), wherein in one embodiment the device comprises a conduit having two sets of internal deflectors (balls) at opposite ends of the conduit, with a central portion of the conduit being unobstructed, which allows for the two sets of baffles to impart different treatments/”frequencies” such as by different electrical properties (Fig. 14, [0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Flammang by having a central portion of the conduit being unobstructed between two sets of deflectors as disclosed by Suddath because this is a known alternative arrangement of baffles of spherical particles used to treat water to lower its surface tension and so that the two sets of deflectors can provide different treatments. Where the absence of any material or baffles in the unobstructed central portion of the conduit will cause the water to inherently return toward laminar flow, See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claim 2 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the water has increased hydrogen ionization after passing through the tube; Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 3 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein electron activation of the water increases as the water passes through the tube, because it increases negative hydrogen ion in the water, which increases electron activity, Flammang Abstract, [0027], [0034], Claim 15
Regarding Claim 4 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the water exiting the tube has decreased water molecule clusters; Flammang [0030].
Regarding Claim 5 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are round; Flammang Figs. 4-5, Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are metal; [0018], [0027], [0036], Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are demagnetized; Flammang [0018], [0027], Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are arranged in an array; Flammang Figs. 4-5, [0027], Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9 Flammang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the deflectors are balls arranged in offset rows; Flammang Figs. 4-5, [0027], Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10 Flammang discloses a method of lowering surface tension of water, comprising:
passing the water through a conduit connected to a water pipe; the conduit having first and second sets of internal deflectors of demagnetized steel, the sets being spaced apart in the conduit (i.e. the offset rows of 2 deflectors are each a set); and whereby the water is cavitated by the first set of deflectors, then cavitated again by the second set of deflectors (each of the sets of deflectors cavitate the water), so as to increase negative hydrogen ions in the water; Abstract, Figs. 4-5; [0018], [0027]-[0031].
Flammang does not disclose a central longitudinal portion of the conduit between two sets of internal deflectors being free from deflectors, such that the water is non-cavitated in the central portion of the conduit between the cavitations by the two sets of deflectors.
However Suddath discloses a method and device for treating water with baffles formed of spheres/balls to create vortices, in order to improve the water such as to lower the surface tension (Abstract, [0026]-[0040]), wherein in one embodiment the device comprises a conduit having two sets of internal deflectors (balls) at opposite ends of the conduit, with a central portion of the conduit being unobstructed, which allows for the two sets of baffles to impart different treatments/”frequencies” such as by different electrical properties (Fig. 14, [0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Flammang by having a central longitudinal portion of the conduit between two sets of internal deflectors being free from deflectors as disclosed by Suddath because this is a known alternative arrangement of baffles of spherical particles used to treat water to lower its surface tension and so that the two sets of deflectors can provide different treatments. Where the absence of any material or baffles in the central longitudinal portion will cause the water to inherently be non-cavitated in the central portion of the conduit between the cavitations by the two sets of deflectors, See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claim 11 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the deflectors are round; Flammang Figs. 4-5, Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim10 wherein each set of the deflectors are arranged in 2x2 rows, with each row offset from an adjacent row; Flammang Fig. 5.
Regarding Claim 13 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 10 wherein each set of deflectors includes a plurality of balls arranged in offset rows; Flammang Figs. 4-5, [0027], Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 10 wherein the water increases in electron activity and decreases in molecular clusters while passing through the pipe; because it increases negative hydrogen ion in the water, which increases electron activity, Flammang Abstract, [0027], [0030], [0034], Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 15 Flammang discloses a method of treating water, comprising: directing the water through a tube; and flowing the water around a first set of deflectors in the tube to create a first cavitation zone, then flowing the water around a second set of deflectors in the tube to create a second cavitation zone (each of the sets of deflectors cavitate the water to create a cavitation zone), whereby the sequential cavitation zones reduces surface tension of molecules in the water; Abstract, Figs. 4-5; [0018], [0027]-[0031].
Flammang does not disclose flowing the water through the tube in a non-cavitation zone between two cavitation zones, whereby the sequential cavitation zones separated by the non-cavitation zone reduces surface tension of molecules in the water.
However Suddath discloses a method and device for treating water with baffles formed of spheres/balls to create vortices, in order to improve the water such as to lower the surface tension (Abstract, [0026]-[0040]), wherein in one embodiment the device comprises a conduit having two sets of internal deflectors (balls) at opposite ends of the conduit, with a central portion of the conduit being unobstructed, which allows for the two sets of baffles to impart different treatments/”frequencies” such as by different electrical properties (Fig. 14, [0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Flammang by having a central longitudinal portion of the conduit between two sets of internal deflectors being free from deflectors as disclosed by Suddath because this is a known alternative arrangement of baffles of spherical particles used to treat water to lower its surface tension and so that the two sets of deflectors can provide different treatments. Where the absence of any material or baffles in the central longitudinal portion will cause the water to inherently be non-cavitated in the central portion of the conduit between the cavitations by the two sets of deflectors, thus creating a non-cavitation zone between two cavitation zones, See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claim 16 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 15, and with regard to wherein the water flows substantially in a laminar manner in the non-cavitation zone, this would involve adjusting the fluid flow rate and/or dimensions of the non-cavitation zone of the tube, which would have been obvious to do in order for the device to fit different pipes and supply flow speeds; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding Claim 17 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the treated water has increased negative hydrogen ions; Flammang Abstract, [0027], Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 18 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 17 wherein the treated water has increased electron activity; because it increases negative hydrogen ion in the water, which increases electron activity, Flammang Abstract, [0027], [0034], Claim 15
Regarding Claim 19 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the treated water has reduced molecular clusters; Flammang [0030].
Regarding Claim 20 Flammang in view of Suddath discloses the method of claim 19 wherein each set of deflectors includes a first row with a first pair of balls and a second row with a second pair of balls, and the first and second rows of balls are misaligned with respect to one another so as to nest together; Flammang Figs. 4-5, [0027], Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773