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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/16/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 8/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search for these groups substantially overlaps and would not be considered an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions would require different search terms/strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the filtering mesh of the inlet and the non-return valve must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 106.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 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.
The term “lightweight” in all of the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightweight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The device is described as lightweight; however, it is unclear to what weight the device is being compared to determine if it is lightweight. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine as what weight a device would be infringing on the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu CN 115999418 (US equivalent 2026/0034522 will be referenced for purposes of the rejection) in view of Xie et al. WO 2023/231786 and Wu US 2015/0238910.
Claim 1, Xu teaches a free-standing, non-electricity drive and municipal water supply applicant nanobubble generating device comprising: a liquid inlet (surrounded by 108), a liquid outlet (at 116), a frustoconical shaped inlet passage, wherein the wider part of the frustoconical shape is connected to the liquid inlet, multiple stacks of porous layers (116) connected to the liquid outlet, the number of stacks of porous layers is two, an inverted frustoconical shaped outlet passage, the wider part of the frustoconical shape is connected to the multiple stack of porous layers, a tubular flow constricting tunnel interconnecting the narrower part of the frustoconical shaped inlet passage and the narrower part of the inverted frustoconical shaped outlet passage and a gas inlet (109) externally connected to a gas supply, the gas inlet is perpendicularly connected to the tubular flow constricting tunnel (fig. 3). Xu does not teach the inlet further comprises a filtering mesh or the gas inlet further comprises a non-return valve. The recitation of the concentration of nanobubbles at a particular pressure and flow rate is a recitation of how the device is used and the effect but does not provide any further structural limitations. A device meeting the structural limitations set forth in claim 1 is deemed to be able to perform the recited concentration of bubbles at the particular pressure and flow rate.
Xie teaches a device comprising a liquid inlet and outlet, a frustoconical shaped inlet passage (211), the wider part of the frustoconical shape is connected to the inlet, a tubular flow constricting tunnel (at 211) interconnecting the narrow part of the frustoconical inlet passage and a gas inlet (100) externally connected to a gas supply, the liquid inlet further comprises a filtering mesh (1) (fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filtering mesh of Xie because the mesh provides for filtering the water flow prior to being aerated (abstract). Xie does not teach the mesh size of the filtering mesh. The mesh size of a filter is a well-known result effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize as being adjustable to filter a predetermined size of particle from a flow of liquid. Therefore, the recited mesh size would have been an obvious modification to ensure that particles of a particular size are removed from the liquid.
Wu teaches a device comprising an inlet and outlet, a frustoconical inlet and outlet passage with a tubular flow constricting tunnel connected to the narrower parts of the inlet and outlet passages and a gas inlet (24) externally connected to a gas supply, the gas inlet is perpendicularly connected the tubular flow constricting tunnel, wherein the gas inlet further comprises a non-return valve (12) (fig. 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the non-return valve because it allows gas to be injected into flow liquid under a normal state and prevent liquid from flowing reversely to a gas providing device (par 8).
Claim 6, Xu further teaches the multiple stacks of porous layers each further comprise two overlapping membranes with a pore size (fig. 3). Xu does not teach the membranes being rimless or the pore size. The recitation of the membranes being rimless is merely a design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Xu teaches bubbles are squeezed to have a smaller volume to achieve the purpose of refining the bubbles (par 33). Therefore, the size of the pores of the membranes would determine the refining of the bubbles to achieve the desired volume of the bubbles and would be a clear result effective variable. [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, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 7, Xu further teaches each stack of the multiple stacks of porous layers has a thickness but does not teach the recited dimensions of the thickness. [W]here 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim 8, Xu further teaches a gap between each stack of the multiple stacks of porous layers but does not teach the recited dimensions of the gap. [W]here 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu CN 115999418 (US equivalent 2026/0034522 will be referenced for purposes of the rejection) in view of Xie et al. WO 2023/231786 and Wu US 2015/0238910 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaharzade et al. US 2023/0096069.
Claims 2-5 recite various dimensional relationships between the diameters of different portions of the device and between lengths of different portions of the device. Gaharzade teaches a venturi device with a frustoconical inlet and outlet and a flow constriction tunnel between the inlet and outlet (fig. 2). Gaharzade also teaches that various flow control parameters can be varied and optimized to control the production of bubbles, and specifically the flow pattern of the bubbles, the shape of the bubbles and the size of the bubbles (par 45). The flow control parameters will depend on the dimensions of the device and specifically, will depend on the ratios of various portions of the device. The recited dimensions of the device are a recitation of an optimization of the dimensions of the device to achieve a desired bubble size, shape or flow pattern. [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, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights