DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. Each of Claims 1-16 recites an “oscillating bubble reactor” within the respective claim language; however, these limitations render the claims indefinite because the claim language does not give any further structure or function on how the bubble reactor oscillates in a manner that makes it an oscillating bubble reactor. While the claims do recite several structural and functional features, nothing in the claims provides further detail into the oscillating nature of the bubble reactor that would allow a prior art reference to read on the claim. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action. For purposes of this office action, the examiner will assume the oscillating bubble reactor only requires the features provided in the claim regardless of oscillation of bubbles.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley, US Pat Pub. 2021/0002157, in view of Uematsu et al. (herein referred to as “Uematsu”, US Pat Pub. 2001/0003291).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Coakley discloses an oscillating bubble reactor (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; ozone is provided in series to treat wastewater), comprising:
a stream inlet configured to receive a contaminated liquid stream (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; feed tank 12 and output to pump 14);
a reactant gas source (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; Paragraph [0043]; ozone source to venturi injectors; comes from hose 40 that supplies ozone);
a serial venturi reactor connected downstream to the stream inlet and configured to receive the contaminated liquid stream, wherein the serial venturi reactor comprises a set of serially connected constrictions alternating with pipe segments having a larger diameter than a smaller diameter of the constrictions (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; see series of venturi injectors 18 along the flow path associated with mixing tanks 20; venturis have constricted flow paths in order to increase velocity, perform vacuum and draw out ozone/reactant gas through the injector into the fluid stream);
a bubble aerator in the serial venturi reactor, the bubble aerator being connected to the reactant gas source and configured to release gas bubbles into the contaminated liquid stream from the reactant gas source (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraph [0039]-[0040]; Paragraph [0042]; venturis and vanes produce bubbles of ozone of a determined size; also mixer/injector 26 which further adds ozone); and
a treated stream outlet connected downstream to the serial venturi reactor (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; see remanufactured water outlet in Figure 1).
While Coakley does disclose bubbles, bubble size and adjustment of said bubble size using internal mixing vanes (Paragraph [0040]), the reference is silent on a micro-nano-bubble aerator (MNBA) that produces reactant gas microbubbles, nanobubbles or combinations of both.
Uematsu discloses an apparatus for generating microbubbles while mixing an additive fluid with a mainstream liquid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing microbubbles to a water (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Uematsu further discloses a micro-bubble aerator that provides microbubbles to the liquid that aid in blending of an additive with the liquid while using a venturi effect (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bubble aerator of Coakley to be the MNBA that produces at least microbubbles as taught by Uematsu, as Uematsu discloses microbubbles help improve the blending of liquid with an additive using a venturi effect (Uematsu, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]; Coakley, Paragraph [0040]; see that Coakley advocates for very small bubble size).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the reactant gas source is a source of ozone and air (Paragraph [0040]; mixture of air and ozone or just ozone).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 2, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the reactant gas source is an ozone generator connected to an air source (Paragraph [0055]; corona discharge unit as detailed in the paragraph).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein a number of constrictions in the serial venturi reactor is from 5 to 50 (Figure 1 shows at least 6 venturi injectors 18 can be aligned together).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. While the combined references are silent on the length of a flow pathway from a first constriction to a last constriction, the MPEP warns against patentability based on changes in size/proportion, see MPEP IV. A., as quoted here. “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Since the functionality of Coakley would work the same regardless of the dimensions of the piping seen in Figure 1, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size/proportion of the piping to be between 10 to 150 feet based on the sizing needs of a user/operator.
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the serial venturi reactor further comprises one or more reactant inlets connected to one or more of the constrictions (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; each venturi has both water inlet and ozone inlet).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the MNBA is positioned in a venturi constriction of the serial venturi reactor (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; ozone inlet to venturi injector 18).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the MNBA is positioned upstream of a venturi constriction of the serial venturi reactor (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; venturi constriction of a downstream venturi injector 18 from a given venturi injector 18).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the MNBA comprises an aerator body having a conical upstream end and a plurality of perforations in fluid communication with the reactant gas source (Figure 2; Figure 3; Paragraph [0043]; see conical form, perforations in orifice 32/sleeve 38).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 9, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the MNBA comprises a hydrophobic membrane sleeve around the aerator body (Figure 3; Paragraph [0056]; Teflon used in all members handling/transferring the ozone).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 10, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the hydrophobic membrane sleeve comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (Paragraph [0056]; Teflon).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 10, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. While the combined references are silent on a pore size of the hydrophobic membrane sleeve, the references due disclose the value of small bubble size (Coakley, Paragraph [0040]; Uematsu, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]). The MPEP also warns against patentability based on changes in size/proportion, see MPEP IV. A., as quoted here. “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Since the change in size of the pores of the membrane will only improve or enhance the effect of smaller bubble size as discussed in both of the cited prior art references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pore size of the hydrophobic membrane to be 5 to 30 μm in order to produce very fine bubbles that would enhance blending of the water (Coakley, Paragraph [0040]; Uematsu, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Coakley discloses a decontamination system (Abstract; wastewater treatment using ozone), comprising:
a contaminated liquid source (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; feed tank 12); and
an oscillating bubble reactor connected to the contaminated liquid source and configured to treat the contaminated liquid (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0042]; ozone is provided in series to treat wastewater), wherein the oscillating bubble reactor comprises:
a stream inlet configured to receive a contaminated liquid stream from the contaminated liquid source (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; feed tank 12 and output to pump 14),
a reactant gas source (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; Paragraph [0043]; ozone source to venturi injectors; comes from hose 40 that supplies ozone),
a serial venturi reactor connected downstream to the stream inlet and configured to receive the contaminated liquid stream, wherein the serial venturi reactor comprises a set of serially connected constrictions alternating with pipe segments having a larger diameter than a smaller diameter of the constrictions (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; see series of venturi injectors 18 along the flow path associated with mixing tanks 20; venturis have constricted flow paths in order to increase velocity, perform vacuum and draw out ozone/reactant gas through the injector into the fluid stream);
a bubble aerator in the serial venturi reactor, the bubble aerator being connected to the reactant gas source and configured to release gas bubbles into the contaminated liquid stream from the reactant gas source (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraph [0039]-[0040]; Paragraph [0042]; venturis and vanes produce bubbles of ozone of a determined size; also mixer/injector 26 which further adds ozone); and
a treated stream outlet connected downstream to the serial venturi reactor (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; see remanufactured water outlet in Figure 1).
While Coakley does disclose bubbles, bubble size and adjustment of said bubble size using internal mixing vanes (Paragraph [0040]), the reference is silent on a micro-nano-bubble aerator (MNBA) that produces reactant gas microbubbles, nanobubbles or combinations of both.
Uematsu discloses an apparatus for generating microbubbles while mixing an additive fluid with a mainstream liquid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing microbubbles to a water (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Uematsu further discloses a micro-bubble aerator that provides microbubbles to the liquid that aid in blending of an additive with the liquid while using a venturi effect (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bubble aerator of Coakley to be the MNBA that produces at least microbubbles as taught by Uematsu, as Uematsu discloses microbubbles help improve the blending of liquid with an additive using a venturi effect (Uematsu, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]; Coakley, Paragraph [0040]; see that Coakley advocates for very small bubble size).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 13, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further disclose wherein the contaminated liquid source comprises a wastewater source (Abstract; waste water).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 13, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses comprising a treated liquid holding tank connected downstream to the treated stream outlet (Paragraph [0048]; Paragraph [0049]; see that remanufactured water may stay in storage for a long period of time).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses comprising a recycle stream from the treated liquid holding tank to the oscillating bubble reactor or to the contaminated liquid source (Paragraph [0028]; water may be recycled to its original purpose, leading to the contaminated liquid feed tank/source 12).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Coakley discloses a method of decontaminating a contaminated liquid stream (Abstract; wastewater treatment using ozone), comprising:
forming reactant gas bubbles of a reactant gas in a contaminated liquid stream, wherein the reactant gas reacts with a contaminant in the contaminated liquid stream (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraph [0039]-[0040]; Paragraph [0042]; venturis and vanes produce bubbles of ozone of a determined size; also mixer/injector 26 which further adds ozone; see mixer/injector 26 is in series);
flowing the contaminated liquid stream and reactant gas bubbles through a serial venturi reactor, wherein the serial venturi reactor comprises a set of serially connected constrictions alternating with pipe segments having a larger diameter than a smaller diameter of the constrictions such that the reactant gas bubbles expand due to lower relative pressure in the constrictions and contract due to higher relative pressure in the pipe segments having a larger diameter (Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]; see series of venturi injectors 18 along the flow path associated with mixing tanks 20; venturis have constricted flow paths in order to increase velocity, perform vacuum and draw out ozone/reactant gas through the injector into the fluid stream; pressure effects in entrained gas/bubbles would have inherent effect due to venturi constriction/expansion/cavitation); and
recovering a treated stream from the venturi reactor, wherein the treated stream has a reduced concentration of the contaminant (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0031]; see remanufactured water outlet in Figure 1).
While Coakley does disclose bubbles, bubble size and adjustment of said bubble size using internal mixing vanes (Paragraph [0040]), the reference is silent on a micro-nano-bubble aerator (MNBA) that produces reactant gas microbubbles, nanobubbles or combinations of both.
Uematsu discloses an apparatus for generating microbubbles while mixing an additive fluid with a mainstream liquid in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing microbubbles to a water (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]). Uematsu further discloses a micro-bubble aerator that provides microbubbles to the liquid that aid in blending of an additive with the liquid while using a venturi effect (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bubble aerator of Coakley to be the MNBA that produces at least microbubbles as taught by Uematsu, as Uematsu discloses microbubbles help improve the blending of liquid with an additive using a venturi effect (Uematsu, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0001]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0023]; Coakley, Paragraph [0040]; see that Coakley advocates for very small bubble size).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Claim 17, upon which Claim 18 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further discloses wherein the reactant gas source is a source of ozone and air (Paragraph [0040]; mixture of air and ozone or just ozone).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 17, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Coakley further disclose wherein the contaminated liquid source comprises a wastewater source (Abstract; waste water).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley, US Pat Pub. 2021/0002157, in view of Uematsu et al. (herein referred to as “Uematsu”, US Pat Pub. 2001/0003291) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ball, US Pat Pub. 2019/0241452.
Regarding instant Claim 20, Claim 17, upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, the combined references are silent on the contaminant being a polyfluoroalkyl substance.
Ball discloses a soil and water remediation method and apparatus for treatment of recalcitrant halogenated substances in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating waste water with ozone (Abstract). Ball further discloses that ozone can be used to treat polyfluoroalkyl substances (Paragraph [0018]; Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contaminant of Coakley to further comprise polyfluoroalkyl substances as taught by Ball because Ball discloses ozone can treat such substances in water (Ball, Paragraph [0018]; Paragraph [0043]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley, US Pat Pub. 2021/0002157, in view of Uematsu et al. (herein referred to as “Uematsu”, US Pat Pub. 2001/0003291) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Barnes, US Pat Pub. 2015/0136671.
Regarding instant Claim 21, Claim 17, upon which Claim 21 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, the combined references are silent on the contaminated liquid stream flowing through the serial venturi reactor at a flow rate that provides a laminar flow rate regime.
Barnes discloses a sanitizer system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of dissolving ozone into water (Abstract; Paragraph [0017]). Barnes further discloses laminar flow regimes flowing through an ozone injector such as a venturi, wherein the laminar flow will be broken up to mix the ozone with the liquid being treated (Paragraph [0017]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flow rate of the liquid flowing through the serial venturi reactor of Coakley by providing the flow rate at a laminar flow rate regime as taught by Barnes because Barnes discloses that the laminar flow will be broken up to mix the ozone with the liquid being treated (Barnes, Paragraph [0017]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley, US Pat Pub. 2021/0002157, in view of Uematsu et al. (herein referred to as “Uematsu”, US Pat Pub. 2001/0003291) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Shim, US Pat Pub. 2011/0031187.
Regarding instant Claim 22, Claim 17, upon which Claim 22 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, the combined references are silent on a flow rate of the reactant gas.
Shim discloses a water treatment system and method using high pressure advanced oxidation process with unreacted ozone reusing in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water with ozone oxidation (Abstract). Shim discloses 100 ml/min as a viable flow rate concentration for ozone treatment of water (Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flow rate of the reactant gas to be within the range of 10 mL/min to about 5000 mL/min as taught by Shim because Shim discloses such a flow rate concentration of ozone is viable for waste water treatment (Shim, Paragraph [0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 01/06/2026