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 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 31-36, and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al (CN 111535511 A) in view of Coombs (GB 239271), Gelinas (US 2,303,629 A), and Wang (CN 106365549 A).
With respect to claim 31, Qin teaches production of an article such as a disc for aeration in water treatment [Abs] by using an aggregate such as silica sand and a binder such as Portland cement [pg. 2] as well as a curing agent.
Regarding the specific structural properties of an aerator i.e. having an internal and external surface such that air may be fed to the internal space and permeate through the external surface for treatment of the surrounding liquid, if this is not considered an inherent feature of an aeration disc as described by Qin, then see further details as described by Coombs, which teaches various embodiments of aerator designs including e.g. configurations with a conduit with an internal flow path for feeding air, and a pervious surface through which air diffuses to generate bubbles in the surrounding liquid. See e.g. [Figs. 18-23, pg. 5 lines 17-38]. This may include a porous cement structure for formation of the air diffusion material [pg. 5 lines 50-60]. These general features represent implicit or at minimum obvious features of an aerator design i.e. a way to receive a feed of air, a space to convey such air, and a surface through which the air may diffuse.
Qin (or Qin and Coombs) essentially differ from the instant claimed invention in that they are silent to the use of an aggregate which includes coke, or to the use of synthetic microfibers to reinforce the article.
However, regarding the use of coke, Gelinas teaches the formation of molded porous articles which are useful for applications such as filtration, drainage, or the like, and teaches forming them but using a cementitious binder and an aggregate including various sizes of coke [pg. 2, right column, lines 13-37 and 52-61] which is useful for forming slabs, pipes, or other shapes useful for the applications and which provides good tensile strength, resistance to snapping, as well as benefits such as cost and ease of manufacture [pg. 1, left column, lines 14-40]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Qin’s taught article to feature coke aggregates because, as in Gelinas, this produces an aggregate with good strength, permeability, cost, manufacturability, etc. Further, because Qin does not particularly limit the type of aggregate employed, it would have been obvious to look to the prior art such as Gelinas to seek out suitable aggregates such as coke which are known to provide beneficial properties.
Further, regarding the use of synthetic microfibers, Wang teaches the production of porous concrete [0002] which can be used for applications such as water treatment and air purification [0037] which has superior properties such as microporous structure, strength, fire resistance, durability, low cost, and high manufacturability [0034-0036] which is molded into desired shapes [0017] and which employs fibers for reinforcement to improve the strength, where such fibers may be synthetic i.e. glass, polyester, polypropylene or the like [0010]. It would have been obvious to further modify the article of Qin to incorporate synthetic fibers of appropriate grade to enhance the strength of the resulting molded article, as suggested by Wang.
With respect to claim 32, as above Qin teaches pressing the mixture to form a rough blank before curing, i.e. molding into a shape [pg. 4, step 3].
With respect to claim 33, Qin teaches disc embodiments but, as above, in view of Coombs, cylindrical embodiments [Figs. 18-23] would also represent obvious configurations for an air diffuser. Regarding such configuration as a molded concrete article, in view of Gelinas [Figs. 1-3] it would be recognized that molded concrete articles may suitably be produced in tubular/cylindrical configurations.
With respect to claims 34-36, Qin is silent to a configuration extending between first and second open ends with plugs or the like thereon; however, as above, Coombs teaches such configurations as useful for forming air diffusers [Figs. 18-23] and teaches embodiments [Fig. 23] may include capped ends to cover the open passage; further, Coombs teaches that the devices may be designed to be positioned in multiples on supply pipes, extending longitudinally or the like [pg. 2 lines 35-42]. As such, providing the ends which may be capped/plugged or may alternately be attached to additional diffuser structures for longitudinal extension would at minimum have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, providing plugs which are similarly formed from a cementitious material would have been obvious to allow the plugged ends to function as further diffuser surface consistent with the rest of the material.
With respect to claim 42, Gelinas teaches that the permeability of the concrete article is controlled in part of the size and porosity of the coke aggregate employes [pg. 2, left column line 69-right column line 7]. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A: ‘"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).’ Optimization of the pore size of the coke in view of the guidance of Gelinas would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because when employing the material to form an air diffuser such as that described by Qin (or Coombs and the like), permeability would necessarily be controlled to allow air to flow through while blocking water or the like.
With respect to claim 43, as above Qin teaches silica sand as an aggregate material, which at minimum would render obvious a rock material absent clarification of the composition requirements. Examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that rock material may include crushed material such that a sand would be interpreted as consistent with the requirements.
With respect to claim 44, as above Qin teaches Portland cement, as does Gelinas.
With respect to claim 45, as above then the general conditions of the claim (i.e. synthetic fibers) are taught for a functional purpose i.e. reinforcing the concrete, as in Wang, finding the optimum or workable range of lengths by routine experimentation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 46, as above Gelinas teaches that both the size and porosity of the coke employed may affect the permeability of the overall article; this would imply multiple types of porous structure, i.e. the pores in the coke directly as well as the spaces around the coke (which would be limited and defined by the size and configuration of the coke aggregates). Regardless, such limitation would appear to represent an inherent result of employing an aggregate such as coke which is, itself, porous to some degree absent clarification of any further structural requirements.
Claims 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al in view of Coombs, Gelinas, and Wang, further in view of Tharp (US 4,842,732).
With respect to claim 37, Qin teaches as above but is silent to the density of the material.
However, Tharp teaches aerators for use in treating a basin or lagoon or the like [Abs] and teaches that it is important for the unit to be self-ballasting so that it does not need to be rigidly attached to air supply piping, and can be easily repositioned without disturbing system operations. Concrete is employed as a ballast material [Col. 5 lines 4-24].
It would have been obvious to employ a concrete formulation which is sufficiently dense i.e. higher density than water (> 1 g/cm3) to self-ballast in the device of Qin because, as in Tharp, this makes the device easier to employ without requiring rigid attachment, and facilitates easy repositioning when needed.
With respect to claim 38, in view of Tharp it would be recognized that additional cementitious material may be employed specifically for controlling ballast properties i.e. in addition to the material that is employ for gas diffusion. Providing such a separate material within the interior of the device, with a different (i.e. more dense) formulation, to control overall ballast, would have been obvious for this purpose.
With respect to claim 39, as above Qin teaches an aeration device for water treatment, such that use in a system with a tank configured to contain wastewater is implicit or at minimum obvious. Regarding placement at the bottom without being anchored, see the discussion of claim 37 above; it would have been obvious to design such a device to be self-ballasting in view of Tharp, as this allows for repositioning and does not require rigid attachment.
With respect to claims 40 and 41, provision of a suitable pressurized air source is implicit or obvious for supplying air to a diffuser, but regardless Tharp explicitly teaches supplying compressed air from a source to one or main diffusers positioned within a basin [Col. 6 lines 33-54, Fig. 1]. Further, regarding positioning in series, as discussed above at least Coombs contemplated connecting aerators together to a common source in a longitudinal manner, such that connection in series e.g. via open terminal ends would have been obvious to adjust the size of a particular diffuser segment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-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 (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777