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 Interpretation
MPEP 2111.02(II) states “the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Therefore, the limitation of “from biogas reactors and other containments, feasible for sand removal with the biogas reactor or other containment is in operation at elevated pressure and temperature” in the preamble of Claim 11 is not given patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 11, lines 2-3, “elevated pressure and temperature”, while not having patentable weight as above, appears to be definite according to the instant specification Page 2, lines 8-10.
Regarding limitations recited in Claim 11 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed tool, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Lines 4-5, “high-pressure liquid…for high pressure liquid injection”; line 5, “in operation directed at volumes with solid, semi solid or soft sand”; and lines 7-8, “wherein high-pressure liquid injection through the nozzles creates a flowable sand flurry” are all manners of operation. In addition, “slurry” in the final line of Claim 11 is a material or article worked upon.
Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
With regard to Claims 15 and 16, “allowing positioning the tool in a tank…through the nozzles (Claim 15), and “as coupled to a flexible tube or a rigid pipe section…through which the flexible tube or the rigid pipe section is operatively arranged” (Claim 16) are manners of operation. The apparatus claims are directed to “a tool”; therefore, the manner of using the tool in a tank or other structure do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. Furthermore, none of “a tank”, “a flexible tube”, “a rigid pipe section”, “a tank wall opening”, “an injector head”, etc., are positively claimed as part of the tool. As stated in MPEP § 2115, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. The claimed tool will be examined as being capable of allowing positioning (Claim 15) or coupled to a flexible tube or a rigid pipe section (Claim 16).
Regarding limitations recited in Claim 17, which are directed to the manner of operating disclosed tool position, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device, not material or article, worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Line 1-2, “the tool position is controlled by operating the injector head…”; line 3-5, “the slurry formation and removal of the formed slurry is controlled by operating or controlling the fluid flow…” are all manner of operation.
Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus “if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim”.
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 11, 15, 17-20 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 11, lines 6-7, recites “wherein the nozzles are arranged to overlap each other with respect to injection effect, in a circumferential volume”. The phrase “overlap each other with respect to injection effect, in a circumferential volume”, is indefinite. There are no further explanations on what component is in a circumferential volume, it could be the nozzles or the injection effect. Examiner requests Applicant to distinctly point out which component is “in a circumferential volume. For purpose of examination, it will be read that the nozzles are arranged in a circumferential volume.
Claim 11, lines 11-12, recites “a first flow path is for high-pressure liquid to be injected through the nozzles and/or to create suction effect in the outlet opening”, regarding to the injection flow path with the function of turning sands into slurry. However, there are no further explanations on how the apparatus can operate both injection and suction at the same time. For purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “the first path will be where high-pressure liquid to be injected, and second flow path will be removing slurry using suction force”.
Claim 11, recites “a number of nozzles fluidly coupled to a high-pressure liquid source for high-pressure liquid injection”, and “one or more dilution nozzles, arranged to dilute the slurry”. It is unclear whether the “number of nozzles” and “dilution nozzles” are the same nozzles or two different set of nozzles. For purpose of examination, “number of nozzles” and “dilution nozzles” will be examined as one type of nozzle that is capable of injecting high-pressure liquid.
With regard to Claim 16, last line, “similar equipment” is indefinite as the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of “similar”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15, line 3 recites “positioning includes using the reaction forces created by flow through the nozzle”, it is unclear what effect the reaction forces created by the flow through the nozzle have on the positioning.
Claim 17, line 2, recites “operating the injector head for running in or retrieving the tube or pipe in the tank or equipment”, regarding controlling the tool position. However, there are no further explanation on what “running in”, “retrieving the tube” or “pipe in the tank or equipment” means. Examiner requests Applicant to describe what “running in”, “retrieving the tube” or “pipe in the tank or equipment” in term of its function. For example, the injectable head is movable.
Claim 18 recites “use of the tool according to Claim 11, for injection of high-pressure fluid for slurry formation into a tank or other equipment and/or removal of material from a tank or other equipment” was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practice. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 19 recites “use of the tool according to claim 18 for slurry formation of sand and other material not active in biogas formation in a biogas tank and removal of the slurry created, while the biogas tank is in operation for biogas production” was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practice. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 20 recites “use of the tool according to claim 18, for removal of a top layer by flotation or chemical processes in a tank or other equipment, by sucking in said material through the outlet opening, with or without an ejector” was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practice. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 18-20 are not further treated on the merits. The examiner has examined apparatus Claims 1-17 for the structure and function recited therein.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwasaki-Higbee (US 2019/0271143 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Iwasaki-Higbee teaches a tool for sand removal (see Abstract, “Apparatus … for cleaning accumulated sediment”), the tool comprising:
A number of nozzles (Fig. 5, nozzles 106) fluidly coupled to a high-pressure liquid source for high pressure liquid injection, in operation directed at volumes with solid, semi solid or soft sand in front of the tool, wherein the nozzles are arranged to overlap each other with respect to injection effect, in a circumferential volume (Fig. 5, nozzles 106 are shown to be arranged in a circumferential volume), and wherein high-pressure liquid injection through the nozzles creates a flowable sand slurry (¶0042, “The nozzle assembly 22 can thus provide a strong, high-volume, stream of water from each nozzle 106… direct the stream of water from each nozzle 106 toward the interior surface of the storm drain conduit 26, to loosen sediment”);
A flowable slurry outlet opening facing the flowable slurry created by the nozzles (¶0024, Fig. 1, shows nozzles 106 facing the sedimentation to create loosen accumulated sediment 27);
One or more dilution nozzles (nozzles 106), arranged to dilute the slurry (¶0024, “water is discharged from the nozzle assembly 22 to break up and loosen accumulated sediment 27”); and
Two flow paths, integrated in the tool, wherein a first flow path is for high-pressure liquid to be injected through the nozzles (Fig. 1, feed hose 24), and wherein a second flow path (Fig. 1, suction hose 36, ¶0026, “dirty water and included sediment may be removed from the point of collection at the downstream end 28 through one or more suction hoses 36”)is for removal of slurry collected through the opening.
Regarding Claim 13, Iwasaki-Higbee teaches the tool according to Claim 11, comprising an ejector (Fig.1, suction hose 36), arranged in the second flow path with ejector suction inlet fluidly coupled to the outlet opening (Fig. 1 shows suction hoses 36 are downstream end 28 of the flow path 29)
Regarding Claim 14, Iwasaki-Higbee teaches the tool according to Claim 11, wherein the tool is coupled to a flexible tubing (Fig. 1, feed hoses 24) comprising at least two flow conduits (the tool is capable of being coupled to a flexible tubing comprising at least two flow conduits, since neither the flexible tubing nor the conduits are part of the claimed tool).
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 11, 13, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjulmand et. al. (WO 2013044926), herein known as Hjulmand, in view of Iwasaki-Higbee (US 2019/0271143 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hjulmand teaches a tool for sand removal from biogas reactors and other containments, feasible for sand removal while the biogas reactor or other containment is in operation at elevated pressure and temperature (see Abstract), the tool comprising: a nozzle fluidly coupled to a high-pressure liquid source for high pressure liquid injection (Fig.1, Page 9, Line 20-27, “Between the pump 8 and the nozzle of the injector pipe 7 a gas pipe 10 is connected to the injector pipe 7”), and;
wherein high-pressure liquid injection through the nozzles creates a flowable sand slurry (Page 10, Line 1-5, “when the pump 8 is activated, it will create a current indicated by the arrow 11 in that the liquid and basic material …”, current defined as water moving from one place to another in a consistent manner, and slurry defined as a semiliquid mixture, Hjulmand teaches a current of liquid and sediment material mixture which read on the claimed limitation of “a flowable sand slurry”);
a flowable slurry outlet opening (Fig.1, suction pipe 6) facing the flowable slurry created by the nozzles (Fig. 3, arrow 11 indicated the current of the liquid and basic material mixture facing the suction pipe 6);
one or more dilution nozzles (nozzle of the injector pipe 7), arranged to dilute the slurry (Page 10, Line 4-6, “The pump will generate a higher pressure and re-inject the liquid containing basic material into the bioreactor again”, the pump 8 re-injecting liquid reads on “dilute the slurry” because dilute is an act of making a (liquid) weaker by adding water or another solvent to it, and re-injecting liquid back into the tank reads on diluting the slurry) ; and two flow paths, integrated in the tool, wherein a first flow path is for high-pressure liquid to be injected through the nozzles and/or to create suction effect in the outlet opening (Fig. 2, Page 10, Line 20-25, “arrows 16 indicate the flow in the tank created by the injection pipe 7”), and wherein a second flow path is for removal of slurry collected through the outlet opening (Fig. 2, Page 10, Line 1- 5 , “the arrow 11 in that the liquid and basic material kept inside the bioreactor will be sucked towards the suction pipe 6 due to the under-pressure created by the pump 8”).
Hjulmand does not teach multiple nozzles fluidly coupled to a high-pressure liquid source for high pressure liquid injection, in operation directed at volumes with solid, semi solid or soft sand in front of the tool, wherein the nozzles are arranged to overlap each other with respect to injection effect, in a circumferential volume.
Iwasaki-Higbee teaches multiple nozzles (Fig. 5, nozzles 106) fluidly coupled to a high-pressure liquid source for high pressure liquid injection (Fig.5, ¶0042, “the nozzle assembly 22 can thus provide a strong, high-volume, stream of water from each nozzle 105”, as shown in figure 3, nozzle assembly 22 containing nozzles 106 and is connected to a high pressure liquid source of supply pump 60), in operation directed at volumes with solid, semi solid or soft sand in front of the tool (¶0042, “direct the stream of water from each nozzle 106 toward the interior surface of the storm drain conduit 26, to loosen sediment from the storm drain conduit 26”, Figure 3 shows nozzle assembly 22 directed at accumulated sediment 27), wherein the nozzles are arranged to overlap each other with respect to injection effect, in a circumferential volume (Fig. 5, nozzles 106 are shown to be arranged in circular arrangement, because the nozzles are arranged 0-40 degree from the center it is inherence that the water coming out of the nozzles will overlap each other).
Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of separation of suspended solid particles from liquids by sedimentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hjulmand installation to incorporate the plurality of nozzles, as taught by Iwasaki-Higbee, to enhance the velocity and pressure of the water leaving the nozzle.
Regarding Claim 13, Hjulmand teaches the tool according to claim 11, comprising an ejector (Hjulmand, Abstract, pump 8), arranged in the second flow path with ejector suction inlet fluidly coupled to the outlet opening (Hjulmand, Abstract, liquid suction pipe 6, Figure 1 indicate the flow to liquid suction pipe 6 and is coupled with pump 8).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hjulmand, the tool according to claim 11, wherein the tool is coupled to a flexible tubing (head 6) comprising at least two flow conduits (Fig. 5 shows the tubing of the device where there are two flow conduits coming from 16a, 16b and the vacuum conduit 4, the tool is capable of being coupled to a flexible tubing comprising at least two flow conduits are part of the claimed tool).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee teaches the tool according to claim 11, comprising nozzles directed in two or three directions (Iwasaki-Higbee, ¶0042, “the nozzle 106 are directed rearwardly and back along the nozzle assembly feed hose 24 and diverge from each other at a respective acute angle 109, of 0-40 degree”), however combination of Hjumand and Iwasaki-Higbee is silent to allowing positioning the tool in a tank within volumes of interest for removal of sand, wherein said positioning includes using the reaction forces created by flow through the nozzles.
Iwasaki-Higbee teaches allowing positioning the tool in a tank within volumes of interest for removal of sand, wherein said positioning includes using the reaction forces created by flow through the nozzles (Iwasaki-Higbee, ¶0043, “the nozzle 106 can cumulate enough water flow volume to carry the loosened sediment downstream within the storm drain conduit 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to position the nozzle to cumulate water volume through the system because doing so would facilitate movement of the nozzles by reducing friction between the nozzle assembly and the system (¶0043).
Regarding Claim 16, Hjulmand teaches the tool according to claim 11, as coupled to a flexible tube or a rigid pipe section (Fig. 1, liquid suction pipe 6) brought sealingly through a tank wall opening or equipment wall opening, wherein the opening and related equipment comprises an injector head, packing box, lubricator, stuffing box, and/or slickline seal and/or similar equipment through which the flexible tube or the rigid pipe section is operatively arranged (Page 2, Line 25 to Page 3, Line 5, “a main pump having respectively a suction side and an injection side, where said pump is arranged externally of the tank…, a liquid suction pipe connecting the interior of the tank to the main pump’s suction side”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee does not teach the tool according to claim 16, wherein the tool position is controlled by operating the injector head for running in or retrieving tube or pipe in the tank or equipment, and operating nozzles in selected directions, while the slurry formation and removal of the formed slurry is controlled by operating or controlling the fluid flow through the nozzles and the outlet opening.
Iwasaki-Higbee teaches the tool position is controlled by operating the injector head for running in or retrieving tube or pipe in the tank or equipment, and operating nozzles in selected directions, while the slurry formation and removal of the formed slurry is controlled by operating or controlling the fluid flow through the nozzles and the outlet opening (the apparatus disclosed by Iwasaki-Higbee is capable of being movable and adjust, which reads on the claimed invention, see Iwasaki Higbee Fig. 4, ¶0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a movable and flexible tube as taught by Iwasaki-Higbee, in order to reduce the cost of moving and replacement of the device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjulmand (WO 2013044926) and Iwasaki-Higbee (US 2019/0271143 A1), as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Mims (US 2017/0072439 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee teaches all the claims as set forth above. The combination teaches the tool according to claim 11, comprising nozzles (Iwasaki-Higbee, Fig. 5, nozzles 106) and outlet opening or ejector suction inlet (Iwasaki-Higbee, Fig. 3, suction hoses 36).
The combination of Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee does not teach the nozzles and the outlet opening in one and the same end of the tool and coupling part or parts in the opposite end of the tool.
Mims teaches the nozzles (a fluidizing passage in the form of a tube 16a, 16b) and the outlet opening (vacuum conduit 4) in one and the same end of the tool and coupling part or parts in the opposite end of the tool (¶0025, “The fluidizing tubes 16a, 16b are offset to either side of the vacuum conduit 4. The fluidizing tubes 16a, 16b fluidically connect the interior of the head 6 to the exterior of the head 6”, Fig. 2 shows the fluidizing tubes 16a, 16b and the vacuum conduit on the same end of the tool).
Hjulmand, Iwasaki-Higbee and Mims are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of separation of suspended solid particles from liquids by sedimentation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzles of Hjulmand and Iwasaki-Higbee to combine the injection nozzle and the suction opening to operate together, as taught by Mims, because doing so would prevent suction end of the hose to touch the flood of the tank, the suction causes the hose to lock to the floor, thus preventing solids from entering the hose (Mims, ¶0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH HUYNH NGOC BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-5588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/A.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
