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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the ducts taught by Werdelmann are too large to produce bubbles suitable for the instant invention i.e. applications such as desalination or water purification are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims require generation of microbubbles (which Werdelmann is capable of at least in the 0.7 mm gap embodiment as argued by applicant) in a system using DAF technology (Werdelmann teaches air flotation technology) in water treatment facilities (Werdelmann teaches water treatment i.e. “fumigation of turbidity” in the pulp industry). The claims do not require, either in functional or structural terms, features suitable for desalination, production of bubbles on the order of 100 microns or less, gaps smaller than 0.7 mm, or the like. The instant claim language is sufficiently broad to be read on the taught device. Further, even if the language were amended to incorporate different gap sizes or the like, Werdelmann further teaches in embodiments that the number, size, and distribution of boreholes can be adapted to the requirements of a particular flotation application, such that the use of different sizes for different applications based on different bubble properties may still be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regardless, the claim language does not currently require such limitations and the rejections of record are maintained.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werdelmann et al (DE 19950600 A1).
Werdelmann teaches [Fig. 1; 0001-0003; 0019-0021] a nozzle for gassing in air flotation cells and producing bubbles of sufficiently small size for use in associated water tanks and the like, which includes the following structural elements:
A main body with at least one first inlet and at least one second inlet in upper surface and lateral wall respectively [Fig. 1];
A first duct (1) that starts from the first inlet and is intended to conduct a water stream inside the main body;
A second duct (8) starting from the second inlet to convey air through the inside of the main body, and connecting to a hollow ring (5) surrounding the first duct to further direct air through third ducts (7); and
A gauge positioned below the main body which creates a separation (3) into which the first and third ducts open which produces bubbles via air contact; said separation is adjustable and allows the nozzle to be scaled via spacer sleeves (10).
Further, Werdelmann discusses testing of the invention under laboratory conditions using a gap size of 5 mm [0026]; as such, the structure taught by Werdelmann anticipates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werdelmann et al in view of Ramirez (WO 2016/018504 A1).
Ramirez teaches as above but is silent to a lateral recess in the lateral wall at which the second inlet is positioned, and is further silent to threaded holes at the first and second inlets for receiving ducts for water and air respectively.
However, Ramirez teaches bubble generation systems employing pressurized gas sources [Abs] and teaches employing threaded connections for various housing components of the system to connect to relevant fluid conduits [0036, 0064] to allow the components to be easily retrofitted into existing systems e.g. with existing gas supply equipment. An embodiment of the diffuser structure includes a threaded connection for such a gas supply line [Fig. 8].
Because Werdelmann does not particularly limit the types of connection structures employed by the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ commonly used connection structures such as screw threaded connections because, as exemplified in the prior art as in Ramirez, these can be usefully compatible with likely pre-existing equipment such as gas lines and allow for convenient retrofit or other compatibility with existing infrastructure.
Regarding the presence of a lateral recess, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.B; changes in shape are obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art, and adjusting the shape of the object for reasons such as facilitating an easier connection (e.g. for accommodating screw threads) would have been an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when implementing connections for compatibility as in Ramirez.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werdelmann et al in view of Shimada et al (WO 2013/108548 A1).
See the discussion above; Werdelmann is silent to the presence of a lateral recess at the second inlet. However, Shimada teaches microbubble generators and includes a gas supply section (13) which may be supplied from an external pipe. To facilitate this, the section inlet is defined by a pipe joint (27) [pg. 3] as well as suitable recessed spaces for facilitating such a fitting e.g. seals, flanges, or similar [Fig. 1].
As above, changes in shape are generally obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art, and providing a recessed space in the housing to facilitate formation of an inlet connection region such as the space accommodating a pipe joint and similar equipment (seals, flanges, etc.) as in Shimada would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a modification of Werdelmann, to allow for easy connection to pipes or the like for gas supply.
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 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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 1776
Prosecution Insights