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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (KR 20190026572 A) in view of Lin (CN 108675231 A).
Re claims 1 & 2, Suzuki et al. show a structure (Fig. 1) comprising a bubble generation device for geoengineering, wherein said structure is characterized by being:
(A) a structure (1) having an effective relative velocity difference with respect to an atmosphere so that a desired area of the structure which contacts the atmosphere can generate turbulence which breaks down bubbles; or
(B) a structure (1) that can maintain an effective relative velocity difference with respect to seawater so that wake waves which break down foam that has dropped onto a water surface from a bubble discharge port can be generated,
wherein the structure includes a turbulence generation device (11/12, or a wave maker (11/12 & 2/3) for breaking down released bubbles, and
wherein at least one foaming device (Fig. 9, 50) is installed on one of the above structures.
Suzuki et al. does not teach a rotary vane that serves as a turbulence generation device and a foam cutter is attached near the bubble discharge port.
However, Lin shows at least one foaming device (7/8), to which a rotary vane (803) that serves as a turbulence generation device and a foam cutter is attached near the bubble discharge port.
The substitution of one known element (foaming device in Suzuki) for another (foaming device as shown in Lin) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the foaming device shown in Lin would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foaming device in Suzuki et al. to provide fire extinguishing (Suzuki – abstract; Lin – paragraph 0015).
Re claim 4, Suzuki et al. as modified by Lin show the structure is a ship (Suzuki – 1) equipped with the bubble generation device, wherein a tower (Suzuki – 7) is installed onto a deck of the ship, the tower extending up into a strong wind region having the effective relative velocity difference with respect to the atmosphere so as to generate the turbulence which breaks down the bubbles at the desired area which contacts the atmosphere, wherein a blade (Suzuki - 58) projecting to the left and right is attached to an upper part of the tower, and wherein foaming devices (Suzuki – 50/Lin – 7/8) are attached to the blade separated by a distance from each other such that bubbles which are released do not interfere with each other, and the discharge ports (Lin – 7) are oriented opposite a traveling direction of the ship.
Re claim 7, Suzuki et al. as modified by Lin show the bubble generation device (Lin – 7/8) generates the bubbles to be discharged which have a lower specific gravity than the atmosphere so that the bubbles obtain buoyancy from the atmosphere after separating from the bubble discharge port (Lin – 7) and accelerate on their own to continue to rise and separate from subsequent bubbles and diffuse as the distance from the subsequent bubbles increases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Suzuki does not teach a structure for geoengineering, as this is merely the recited intended use and Suzuki (in view of Lin) discloses all of the claimed structure, the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Applicant states that “Suzuki does not expose foam to sunlight or external air” however, Suzuki explicitly discloses “that the air in the hold 5 is pushed out and discharged or the outside air is pushed into the hold 5” readily found in paragraph 2 of page 3 of the included translation and that the air supplied to blower 50 is also “outside air” as disclosed in paragraph 4 on page 6 of the included translation. Thus, contrary to applicant’s assertion, the foam is in fact exposed to external air.
Regarding applicant’s argument of combination with the Lin reference, the central aspect of which appears to rest on the idea that Lin creates smaller bubbles than Suzuki, however this does not appear to diminish the function of either device in any way. If anything, they appear to be accomplishing the exact same function in a different way which in no way destroys the Suzuki reference and if anything enhances the basis of the modification.
In response to applicant's argument that “the bearings and seals of small microbubble machine often rely on water for lubrication and cooling with water,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Both Suzuki and Lin teach foaming devices that require water and air. Both references utilize components to mechanically bring outside air into the system to mix with the water to create foam. The exact form that the foam takes isn’t the function of either device, the function is what is accomplished by the foam once it’s released, and in this instance both reference utilize foam for the exact same function.
Lastly, applicant argues that Lin “is not configured for the claimed geoengineering” however, again, as this is merely the intended use of the claimed invention, with all of the claimed structure present and no further claimed details required, such as further structure required to perform this function, that would differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art combination, there appears to be no reason that the prior art cannot be considered capable of performing this intended use.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752