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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “B”, as mentioned in paragraphs [0068] and [0069] of the specification. 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. 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.
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 secondary rotatable member, as recited by instant claims 2, 4, and 6; the secondary rotatable member being in the form of a container or a cylinder or a shaft with discs, or an auger, as recited by instant claims 4 and 5; the secondary rotatable member including one or more additional closed/sealed containers, as recited by instant claim 6; the rotatable member being in the form of a shaft or auger or a shaft with discs mounted thereon, as recited by instant claims 7, 8, 17, and 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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 4-6, 9-12, 17, 18, and 20 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 is vague and indefinite since it refers to the “secondary rotatable member” in claim 2 that does not necessarily exist within the device, since claim 2 provides for an optional inclusion of “a secondary rotatable member”. As such, since the device of claim 2 does not require the inclusion of “a secondary rotatable member”, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to understand the scope of claim 4 that aims to limit a non-existent element.
In claim 5, line 1, “the shaft” lacks antecedent basis. This rejection would be obviated by changing the dependency of claim 5 from claim 2 to claim 4, which provides for “a shaft”. In line 2, of claim 5, it is unclear as to what applicant intends to claim with respect to the phrase, “the one or more discs rotatable optionally rotatable”.
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite since it refers to the “secondary rotatable member” in claim 2 that does not necessarily exist within the device, since claim 2 provides for an optional inclusion of “a secondary rotatable member”. As such, since the device of claim 2 does not require the inclusion of “a secondary rotatable member”, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to understand the scope of claim 6 that aims to limit a non-existent element.
Claim 9 and 10 are apparatus claims that only recite materials worked on by the apparatus and thus fail to further limit the structure of the apparatus defined by the claims from which they depend. Note that an argument that the claims are directed to a “system”, rather than an apparatus, wherein the system includes the material streams acted upon by a device would not be persuasive, since the statutory classes of invention eligible for a patent must be one of an apparatus, process, product or composition.
Claim 12 is vague and indefinite, since it only recites possible intended uses for the device, without providing any manipulative steps indicative of how the device might be operated to satisfy the proposed intended uses.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are method claims that do not include a single manipulative step of the method, which renders the claims vague and indefinite, since they do not define a clear and distinct method for which applicant seeks patent protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Melrose.
Melrose (Fig. 1; col. 1, 16-19, 62-72; col. 2, lines 9-16, 62-72; col. 3, lines 3-8, 23-30, 38-59; col. 4, lines 7-12) discloses a method and apparatus for contacting and thus reacting blood with oxygen (the hemoglobin within blood reacts with oxygen, the chemical reaction increases the blood’s oxygen carrying capacity by about 70 times over that which would be possible by simple dissolution of oxygen within the blood). The apparatus as disclosed by Melrose comprises means (55) for providing a gaseous medium for contact with a liquid medium passed through inlet (51) into a reservoir of liquid within the rotatable cylinder (20), the rotatable cylinder (20) providing a rotatable member having a surface and a central axis oriented at a fixed angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to horizontal (see Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 70-72), the rotatable cylinder (20) along with secondary rotatable members (discs 33 on shafts 40,41) within the cylinder providing surfaces for generating renewing wetted surfaces for enhanced mass transfer of the gas between the liquid medium and the gaseous medium (claims 1 and 13) on the outer surfaces of the secondary rotatable members (33) or the inner surface of the rotatable cylinder (20) (claims 7,8,15, and 17). With regard to the liquid mediums as recited by instant claims 9 and 10, the apparatus of Melrose is clearly capable of operating with the claimed liquid mediums as set forth by the instant claims, i.e., liquid medium having nanobubbles and/or microorganism cultures and nutrients. The nearly vertical arrangement of the smooth surfaces of the discs (33) would clearly provide for the prevention of adherence of the reaction products thereon, as set forth by instant claim 11. Also, the apparatus as taught by Melrose could clearly be used to treat wastewater, as set forth by instant claim 12, if desired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melrose taken together with Schreiber.
Melrose (Fig. 1; col. 1, 16-19, 62-72; col. 2, lines 9-16, 62-72; col. 3, lines 3-8, 23-30, 38-59; col. 4, lines 7-12) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 16 and 20, except for the liquid medium being in the form of water, as required by instant claim 16.
Schreiber (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 37-39, 42-45, 52-55, 68-72; col. 2, lines 1-2, 19-29; col. 3, lines 62-73) discloses an inclined, rotating gas/liquid contacting cylinder similar to that of Melrose, wherein the chosen process of Schreiber is an air water contact process for treating wastewater, the cylinder (1) having an auger element (2) formed on the inner surface thereof to provide a rotatable member for creating a renewing wetted surface for contact with the gaseous medium within the device. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the contact process within the Melrose device, to be a water/air contact process, in view of Schreiber, since such would provide for a convenient means to treat a wastewater stream in an economical manner.
Claims 2, 4-6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melrose taken together with Asgari et al.
Melrose (Fig. 1; col. 1, 16-19, 62-72; col. 2, lines 9-16, 62-72; col. 3, lines 3-8, 23-30, 38-59; col. 4, lines 7-12) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 2, 4-6, 14, and 19, except for the rotatable reservoir container (20) being a sealable container, as recited by instant claims 2 and 14, the plurality of sealed containers as set forth by instant claim 6, and the device being used for cultivation of a microorganism wherein the liquid medium is provided with a microorganism and nutrients, as recited by instant claim 19. It should be noted that Melrose clearly teaches secondary rotatable members (discs) on shaft means, as discussed above, and as set forth by instant claims 4 and 5.
Asgari et al (Abstract; Figs. 7, 8, 14-18, 20, 21, and 26; paragraphs [0058], [0059], [0061]-[0063], [0109], [0122], [0134], [0175]) disclose a sealable, rotatable reservoir container (100) having at least an auger (120 in Fig. 8) forming a secondary rotatable member (claims 2, 4, and 14) for providing a renewing wetted surface on the inner surface of the container (100) or the outer surface of the auger (120). The reference also discloses that the sealable containers may be provided as a plurality of vessels connected in series (claim 6), and that the device is used to cultivate microorganisms by using microorganism cultures and nutrients (claim 19). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the Melrose apparatus and process with well known means to sealably close the rotatable contact container, in view of Asgari et al, since such would allow for processing of sensitive materials that could be contaminated by a contactor opening to the ambient environment. Furthermore, wherein both Melrose and Asgari et al utilize rotatable cylindrical containers having augers therein for enhancing the contact of gas and liquid mediums within the devices, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide plural sealed containers, in view of Asgari et al, as a means to provide increased throughput or increased stages of contact to enhance the production of reaction product from the contacted phases, and to further utilize the suggested device to cultivate microorganisms at an enhanced level of efficiency and production.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melrose taken together with KR 10-1125851.
Melrose (Fig. 1; col. 1, 16-19, 62-72; col. 2, lines 9-16, 62-72; col. 3, lines 3-8, 23-30, 38-59; col. 4, lines 7-12) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claim 18, except for the liquid medium having nanobubbles therein.
KR 10-1125851 (The Figure; English Machine Translation) discloses a rotatable member (30) having an auger thereon for contacting a liquid medium with a gaseous medium from source (50), the liquid medium including nanobubbles of the gas due to the action of the rotatable member. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to operate the device of Melrose on a desired liquid medium in contact with a desired gaseous medium, under conditions of contact, as suggested by KR ‘851, to produce nanobubbles of the gaseous medium within the liquid medium, to facilitate a higher degree of dissolution of the gas within the liquid medium, thereby enhancing the reaction between the phases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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.
/C.S.B/9-4-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights