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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending:
Claims 1-19 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/08/2023 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups II and III incorporate the features recited in claim 1 of Group I. This is found persuasive therefore all claims are being considered for examination purposes. The restriction requirement mailed on 02/09/2026 has been withdrawn.
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 4 and 13 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.
Claim 4 recites “and/or”; it is unclear what is intended by this phrase.
Claim 13 recites “the tank”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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, 4-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450).
Regarding claim 1, Selk teaches an aerator (floating fountain, see Figs. 1-5) for use in removal of volatile organic compounds, the aerator comprising:
a pipe float (chamber 12 and buoyancy ring chamber 14) configured to float partially submerged on a water surface (wherein the buoyancy of the buoyancy ring is such that the water inlet is submerged below the water surface when placed in a water environment, see claim 11);
a nozzle (nozzle head 46) extending out of a top of the pipe float (see Fig. 1); a submersible motor and pump (pump 40) (a pump inherently has a motor).
…the pump extending down from a bottom of the pipe float (see Fig. 1); and
Selk does not teach: (1) a sleeve frame extending down from a bottom of the pipe float; (2) the submersible motor and pump extending into the sleeve frame; and (3) a bottom base attached to the sleeve frame.
In a related field of endeavor, McGrew teaches a removable submersible pump filter (see ABS) comprising a sleeve frame (filter screen 2); a submersible motor and pump (pump housing 18 and pump motor 24) extending into the sleeve frame (the pump housing 18 and motor 24 extend into and are partially positioned within the filter screen 2, see Fig. 1); a bottom base attached to the sleeve frame (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump of Selk by incorporating a sleeve frame and bottom base as disclosed by McGrew because it provides a structural support for the pump and protects the pump from debris and improves stability and durability during operation (McGrew, see ¶ and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1, wherein the nozzle is configured to spray water from a body of water in a substantially …vertical direction with respect to the water surface (Selk, nozzle head 42 is substantially vertical or up, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1, further comprising a sleeve insert (McGrew, filter medium 13) positioned within the sleeve frame (McGrew, see Fig. 3), wherein the submersible motor and pump extend into the sleeve insert (McGrew, filter medium of various design and characteristics which can be simply packed or positioned between the filter screen 2 and the pump suction openings 19, see ¶9).
Regarding claim 9, Selk teaches a system (floating fountain, see Figs. 1-5) for reducing an amount of volatile organic compounds (Selk does not teach the claimed intended use but teaches all the structure capable of performing the claimed intended use) comprising: a reservoir (for use in swimming pools and ponds, see ¶3) comprising a body of water; and an aerator (floating fountain 10; the water becomes aerated, see ¶3) positioned in the body of water,
wherein the pipe float floats partially submerged on a water surface of the body of water (wherein the buoyancy of the buoyancy ring is such that the water inlet is submerged below the water surface when placed in a water environment, see claim 11).
Selk does not teach all the features required for the aerator according to claim 1.
In a related field of endeavor, McGrew teaches a removable submersible pump filter (see ABS) comprising a sleeve frame (filter screen 2); a submersible motor and pump (pump housing 18 and pump motor 24) extending into the sleeve frame (the pump housing 18 and motor 24 extend into and are partially positioned within the filter screen 2, see Fig. 1); a bottom base attached to the sleeve frame (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump of Selk by incorporating a sleeve frame and bottom base as disclosed by McGrew because it provides a structural support for the pump and protects the pump from debris and improves stability and durability during operation (McGrew, see ¶ and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, the combination of Selk and McGrew teaches the aerator of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S. 63450) and further in view of Roberts (USPN 7,329,351) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Roberts (USPN 7,329,351).
Regarding claims 2-3, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach that (1) the pipe float is made from high density polyethylene or (2) the pipe float is filled with closed cell polyethylene foam material.
In a related field of endeavor, Roberts teaches a process and apparatus for increasing biological activity in waste (see ABS) comprising closed cell polyethylene foam material (foam such as polyethylene into a closed-cell foam) and a pipe float made from high density polyethylene (high density polyethylene (HDPE), see C18/L40-50; plastic pipe float, see claim 8 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the undisclosed buoyancy material of Selk with the closed cell polyethylene foam material of Roberts because it provides sufficient buoyancy for flotation in water (Roberts, see C8/L60-67) and Selk is open to any buoyancy material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the undisclosed material of Selk with the high-density polyethylene material of Roberts because said material is strong, water proof and water resistant (Roberts, see C8/L1-10) and Selk is open to any buoyancy material.
Regarding claim 12, Selk and McGrew teach the system of claim 9.
The combination of references does not teach a mixing device submerged within the body of water.
In a related field of endeavor, Roberts teaches an apparatus for waste treatments in ponds and lagoons (see ABS) comprising an aerator for aerating or mixing (mixer submerged as shown in Figs. 27a-b and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Selk by incorporating a mixing device submerged within the body of water as disclosed by Roberts because it helps to increase the efficiency of aeration or dissolved oxygen transfer into the water (Roberts, see C12/L60-65, C21/L45-55 and C24/L1-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Lee (KR 20-0283383)
Regarding claim 6, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach eyebolts attached to the submersible motor and pump.
In a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches a water motor pump (see ABS) comprising eyebolts (eyebolts 7, 7’) attached to the submersible motor and pump (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the submersible pump of Selk by attaching eyebolts to the submersible motor and pump as disclosed by Lee because they provide secure anchor points for the submersible pump and motor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Watkins (USPN 4,350,648).
Regarding claim 7, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach U-bolts attached to the pipe float.
In a related field of endeavor, Watkins teaches a floating aerator (see ABS) comprising U-bolts (U-bolts 30) attached to a pipe float (attached U-bolts 30 to cylindrical float body 10, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pipe float of Selk by attaching U-bolts to the pipe float as disclosed by Watkins because they help to secure and fasten the device (Watkins, see C2/L1-15, C2/L45-55 and Fig. 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Emerson (US 2008/0087466).
Regarding claim 8, Selk and McGrew teach the aerator of claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach a submersible pump wire having splice connections.
In a related field of endeavor, Emerson teaches a splicing system (see ABS) comprising a submersible pump (submersible pump, see ¶19) wire having splice connections (crimp slice connectors 500, 510, and 520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the submersible pump of Selk by incorporating the splice connections of Emerson because they help to reliably and efficiently transfer electrical power at a low cost (Emerson, see ¶36-¶37).
Claims 10-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Drewelow (US 2008/0000839).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 13, Selk and McGrew teach the system of claim 9.
The combination of references does not teach that (1) the reservoir comprises a vent where volatile organic compounds exit the reservoir; (2) a controller in operable communication with the aerator; and (3) the reservoir comprises an active ventilation device to introduce external air into the tank.
In a related field of endeavor, Drewelow teaches a method and system for water decontamination (see ABS) comprising (1) a reservoir (aeration tank 11) comprises a vent (contaminated gas effluent connection point 50) where volatile organic compounds (VOCs, see ¶171) exit the reservoir (see Fig. 7); (2) a controller (controller, see ¶26) in operable communication with the aerator (the controller is capable of regulating one or more of the aerator module, see ¶26); and (3) the reservoir comprises an active ventilation device (air compressor 20) to introduce external air into the tank (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the aerator of Selk by positioning said aerator in the aeration tank (comprising controller to be in operable communication with the aerator and air compressor) as disclosed by Drewelow because it helps to contain water to be treated and would facilitate removal of volatile contaminants (Drewelow, see ABS) in the aeration tank through increased air-water contact (Selk, see ¶3) and controlled venting while automatically removing contamination and producing clean water on a continuous basis (Drewelow, see ABS).
Regarding claims 14, Selk teaches a method of removing …compounds from a body of water (floating fountain which has lights and a UV clarifier for cleaning the algae in water, see ¶), the method comprising: positioning an aerator (floating fountain 10) …in a body of water contained in a reservoir (for use in swimming pools and ponds, see ¶3), wherein the pipe float floats partially submerged on a water surface (wherein the buoyancy of the buoyancy ring is such that the water inlet is submerged below the water surface when placed in a water environment, see claim 11) and the submersible motor and submersible pump are submerged in the body of water (pump itself may provide sufficient ballast, as it is located at the bottom of the chamber, see ¶23; the ballast will keep the pump and motor submerged; the pump of Selk inherently has a motor); distributing water from the submersible pump toward the nozzle positioned above the water surface (a water outlet nozzle at the top of the chamber for receiving water which has been treated with ultraviolet energy and pumped, to provide a pumped-water stream above the water surface, see ¶4); and spraying water into air present in a headspace of the reservoir (a water outlet nozzle at the top of the chamber to provide a pumped-water stream above the water surface, see ¶4; a nozzle head 46 which preferably has a plurality of openings or nozzles in a fountain head arranged so that the water streams up above the water surface to provide an ornamentally-attractive spray pattern, see ¶19)…
Selk does not teach (1) removing volatile organic compounds from a body of water; (1) the aerator in claim 1 comprising sleeve frame and a bottom base; (3) the reservoir where the volatile organic compounds are liberated from the water for removal.
In a related field of endeavor, McGrew teaches a removable submersible pump filter (see ABS) comprising a sleeve frame (filter screen 2); a submersible motor and pump (pump housing 18 and pump motor 24) extending into the sleeve frame (the pump housing 18 and motor 24 extend into and are partially positioned within the filter screen 2, see Fig. 1); a bottom base attached to the sleeve frame (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump of Selk by incorporating a sleeve frame and bottom base as disclosed by McGrew because it provides a structural support for the pump and protects the pump from debris and improves stability and durability during operation (McGrew, see ¶ and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, the combination of Selk and McGrew teaches the aerator of claim 1.
In a related field of endeavor, Drewelow teaches a method and system for water decontamination (see ABS) comprising the step of removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs, see ¶171) from a body of water (contaminated gas effluent connection point 50, see Fig. 7); having a reservoir (aeration tank 11) where the volatile organic compounds are liberated from the water for removal (contaminated gas effluent connection point 50, see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the aerator of Selk by positioning said aerator in the aeration tank (comprising controller to be in operable communication with the aerator and air compressor) as disclosed by Drewelow because it helps to contain water to be treated and would facilitate removal of volatile contaminants (Drewelow, see ABS) in the aeration tank through increased air-water contact (Selk, see ¶3) and the combination features allows for controlled venting while automatically removing contamination and producing clean water on a continuous basis (Drewelow, see ABS).
Regarding claim 15, Selk, McGrew and Drewelow teach the method of claim 14, wherein the water is sprayed substantially …vertically in the headspace with respect to the water surface (Selk, nozzle head 42 is substantially vertical or up, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Selk, McGrew and Drewelow teach the method of claim 14, wherein the volatile organic compounds exit the reservoir through a vent (Drewelow, i.e. contaminated gas effluent connection point 50).
Regarding claim 17, Selk, McGrew and Drewelow teach the method of claim 14, wherein the aerator is controlled during operation with a controller (Drewelow, i.e. controller).
Regarding claim 18, Selk, McGrew and Drewelow teach the method of claim 14, further comprising introducing external air into the tank with an active ventilation device (Drewelow, air compressor 20).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selk (US 2011/0240757) in view of McGrew (US 2005/0263450) and further in view of Drewelow (US 2008/0000839) and further in view of Roberts (USPN 7,329,351).
Regarding claim 19, Selk, McGrew and Drewelow teach the method of claim 14.
The combination of references does not teach circulating water to the aerator with a mixing device submerged within the body of water.
In a related field of endeavor, Roberts teaches an apparatus for waste treatments in ponds and lagoons (see ABS) comprising circulating water to the aerator with a mixing device submerged within the body of water (mixer submerged as shown in Figs. 27a-b and 28 using a circulator device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Selk by incorporating the step of circulating water to the aerator with a mixing device submerged within the body of water as disclosed by Roberts because it helps to increase the efficiency of aeration or dissolved oxygen transfer into the water (Roberts, see C12/L60-65, C21/L45-55 and C24/L1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Khudenko (USPN 4,482,510) teaches an aeration device comprising jet-aerator mounted on floats (see Figs. 4-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights