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 response filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 four jet ejector arrangements arranged inside the container, symmetrically with respect to each other and tangentially with respect to the wall of the container as recited in claim 35; and
the flow direction in the jet ejectors is radially towards a center of the container as recited in claim 36 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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(s) 30, 31, 34, 41-44, 46, 47, 49-51, 55 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagel et al. (US 3938738. Nagel hereinafter).
With respect to claim 30, Nagel discloses a jet ejector arrangement (Fig. 1), comprising:
a jet ejector (in Fig. 1), comprising:
an internal nozzle (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having a base (at point 1) and a tip (at 2) and, on a common longitudinal (vertical) axis, an inlet (at point 1 and 5. Col. 3, lines 40-43) for a motive fluid (liquid) at the base and an outlet (opening at 2) for an accelerated motive fluid at the tip;
a hollow tube (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having a base (at 5) and surrounding the internal nozzle, such that the base of the hollow tube surrounds (encasing) the base of the nozzle, and extending (in the direction) downstream the tip, wherein a flow (upward) direction in the hollow tube is defined by a flow direction of the motive fluid, for (capable of) mixing and reacting the motive fluid with an additional fluid feed (gas from 12 and 13) in a reaction zone (immediately downstream of 2) in the hollow tube, thereby providing a reacted (mixed) fluid; and
an opening in a wall of the hollow tube (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) for entry of the additional fluid feed (liquid 8);
a feed line (11) for the additional fluid (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention), external to the jet ejector, wherein the feed line has an output (lower) end, located in a vicinity of but not connected (not physically connected in a pipe coupling sense. Same as the Applicant’s invention) to the opening in the wall of the hollow tube, and wherein, when in operation, the jet ejector generates a suction zone (near the opening) outside the jet ejector via the opening, and wherein the output end of the feed line is located in (within) said suction zone outside the jet ejector to (capable of) feed the additional fluid (at the top of 7) into the opening in the wall of the hollow tube.
With respect to claim 31, Nagel discloses the jet ejector arrangement according to claim 30, further comprising flow control means (size or wall of the tubes of the internal nozzle and hollow tube) in any one of the inlets for the motive fluid and the feed line.
With respect to claim 34, Nagel discloses a system (Figs. 1 and 3) for reacting at least two fluid chemicals (Col. 1, lines 8-17) with each other, comprising:
at least one jet ejector arrangement according to claim 30 and
a container (7);
wherein the at least one jet ejector arrangement is entirely located inside the container, the opening being in fluid communication with content of the container.
With respect to claim 41, Nagel discloses the system according to claim 34, the container comprising an outlet (10) for (capable of) its liquid content in a form of an overflow.
With respect to claim 42, Nagel discloses the system according to claim 34, further comprising means for recovering heat (“…a large portion of the energy of the liquid jet of an ejector is converted to heat by friction against the wall of the mixing tube without having contributed to the mixing operation… Col. 1, lines 48-51.”
With respect to claim 43, Nagel discloses the system according to claim 34, further comprising means for separating out steam from the container (at 10) and means for cleaning (3 or opening of 10) the separated steam.
With respect to claim 44, Nagel discloses a method for reacting two fluids in the system according to claim 34, comprising steps of:
a) feeding a first fluid (from point 1 and inlet 5) as the motive fluid to the internal nozzle of at least one jet ejector arrangement; and
b) feeding a second fluid (the second stream of liquid 8) through the feed line of the at least one jet ejector arrangement, thereby reacting the two fluids.
With respect to claim 46, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the fluid fed in step a) is a gas (gas sucked in through inlet 5).
With respect to claim 47, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, further comprising the step of:
c) recirculating the content of the container (from 9) back to the container.
With respect to claim 49, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, further comprising the step of: operating flow control means (size or wall of the tubes of the internal nozzle and hollow tube) in the inlet for the motive fluid and in the feed line of the at least one jet ejector arrangement, such as to control a ratio of the flow of the motive fluid over the flow in the feed line.
With respect to claim 50, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the internal nozzle of the at least one jet ejector arrangement is operated at atmospheric pressure (Col. 4, lines 17-25).
With respect to claim 51, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, further comprising the step of: adjusting a temperature of the content (by continuously recirculating the fluids in tank 7 and having new liquid enter from 1 and mixed liquids leaving the tank at 10) being recirculated during step c).
With respect to claim 55, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, performed in a batch manner or continuously (by recirculating the content in tank 7).
With respect to claim 56, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the first fluid is a base (motive fluid. water) and the second fluid is an acid (EXAMPLE 1. Cobalt compounds, particularly in solution, are generally considered weakly acidic. https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/).
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.
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) 32 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel.
With respect to claim 32, Nagel discloses the jet ejector arrangement according to claim 30 except for wherein the output end of the feed line is located from 1 to 15 cm away from the opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the output end of the feed line located from 1 to 15 cm away from the opening, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 45, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44 except for wherein the flows of the first fluid and of the second fluid are adjusted such that the first fluid and the second fluid reside in the hollow tube of the jet ejector for a period ranging from 0.1 to 5 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flows of the first fluid and of the second fluid are adjusted such that the first fluid and the second fluid reside in the hollow tube of the jet ejector for a period ranging from 0.1 to 5 seconds, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Blechschmitt et al. (US 20140064017. Blechschmitt hereinafter)
With respect to claim 33, Nagel discloses the jet ejector arrangement according to claim 30, except for wherein the opening comprises two openings diametrically opposed in the wall of the hollow tube.
However, Blechschmitt teaches a jet ejector arrangement (Figs. 1-18), comprising: a jet ejector (Fig. 12), comprising: an internal nozzle (downstream of 4) having a base (at 4) and a tip (at 1) and, on a common longitudinal axis, an inlet (upstream of 4) for a motive fluid at the base and an outlet (opening at1) for an accelerated motive fluid at the tip; a hollow tube (surrounding 1) having a base (at 1) and surrounding the internal nozzle, such that the base of the hollow tube surrounds (encasing) the base of the nozzle, and extending downstream the tip, wherein a flow (upper leftward) direction in the hollow tube is defined by a flow direction of the motive fluid, for (capable of) mixing and reacting the motive fluid with an additional fluid (from 3) feed in a reaction zone (at 2) in the hollow tube, thereby providing a reacted fluid; and an opening (left and right sides of 1) in a wall of the hollow tube for entry of the additional fluid feed. Blechschmitt further teaches wherein the opening comprises comprising two openings diametrically opposed in the wall of the hollow tube (Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of two openings diametrically opposed in the wall of the hollow tube, as taught by Blechschmitt, to Nagel’s hollow tube, in order to provide additional openings to the hollow tube to increase flow rate (Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Varadaraj et al. (US 7008536. Varadaraj hereinafter).
With respect to claim 35, Nagel discloses the system according to claim 34, except for wherein the at least one jet ejector arrangement comprises four jet ejector arrangements arranged inside the container, symmetrically with respect to each other and tangentially with respect to the wall of the container.
However, Varadaraj teaches a system (Figs. 1-6) for reacting at least two fluid chemicals (Col. 1, lines 35-48) comprising four jet ejector arrangements (37 and 36. Six shown in Fig. 4) arranged inside the container (10), symmetrically with respect to each other and tangentially with respect to the wall of the container (Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a system for reacting at least two fluid chemicals comprising four symmetrically opposing jet ejector arrangements, as taught by Varadaraj, to Nagel’s system, in order to improve the mixing so as to result in separation of the two fluids by streams impact and intermix in a region between the outlets (Col. 4, lines 5-23).
Claim(s) 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Varadaraj and further in view of Blechschmitt.
With respect to claim 36, Nagel’s system modified by Varadaraj’s four symmetrically opposing jet ejector arrangements, Nagel and Varadaraj fail to disclose wherein the four jet ejector arrangements are directed such that the flow direction in the jet ejectors is radially towards a center of the container.
However, Blechschmitt teaches a jet ejector arrangement (Figs. 1-18), comprising: a jet ejector (Fig. 12), comprising: an internal nozzle (downstream of 4) having a base (at 4) and a tip (at 1) and, on a common longitudinal axis, an inlet (upstream of 4) for a motive fluid at the base and an outlet (opening at1) for an accelerated motive fluid at the tip; a hollow tube (surrounding 1) having a base (at 1) and surrounding the internal nozzle, such that the base of the hollow tube surrounds (encasing) the base of the nozzle, and extending downstream the tip, wherein a flow (upper leftward) direction in the hollow tube is defined by a flow direction of the motive fluid, for (capable of) mixing and reacting the motive fluid with an additional fluid (from 3) feed in a reaction zone (at 2) in the hollow tube, thereby providing a reacted fluid; and an opening (left and right sides of 1) in a wall of the hollow tube for entry of the additional fluid feed. Blechschmitt further teaches wherein the jet ejector arrangement are directed such that the flow direction in the jet ejector is radially towards a center of the container (Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the flow direction in the jet ejector is upwards and radially towards a center of the container, as taught by Blechschmitt, to Nagel’s flow direction, in order to provide mixing and circulation of fluids in the container (Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 37, Nagel in view of Varadaraj and further in view of Blechschmitt discloses the system according to claim 36 except for wherein the container has a volume ranging from 0.5 to 20 m3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the container has a volume ranging from 0.5 to 20 m3, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 38-40 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Paltz et al. (US 4164541. Paltz hereinafter).
With respect to claim 38, Nagel discloses the system according to claim 34, Nagel fails to disclose the system further comprising: at least two of the jet ejector arrangements; a recirculation line having an inlet in fluid communication with the content of the container, and an outlet in fluid communication with the content of the container; and means for feeding part of the content of the container to the recirculation line.
However, Paltz teaches a system (Figs. 1-6) for reacting at least two fluid chemicals (Col. 1, lines 8-17) with each other, comprising: at least two of the jet ejector arrangements (20 and 21) and a container (11), a recirculation line (17, 17’, 19, 19’) having an inlet (at 13) in fluid communication with the content of the container, and an outlet (at 20 and 21) in fluid communication with the content of the container; and means for feeding (18, 18’) part of the content of the container to the recirculation line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a recirculation line with means for feeding, as taught by Paltz, to Nagel’s system, in order to recirculate the fluids thus improve the mixture of the fluids (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 39, Nagel’s system modified by Paltz’s recirculation line, Paltz further teaches wherein the outlet of the recirculation line is in fluid communication with the inlet of the internal nozzle of a jet ejector, the flow direction in this jet ejector being upwards (of 20, 20’ in Fig. 1) and tangential (Fig. 2) with respect to the wall of the container.
With respect to claim 40, Nagel’s system modified by Paltz’s recirculation line, Paltz further teaches the system further comprising temperature adjustment means (energy results. Col. 4, lines 3-15) in the recirculation line.
With respect to claim 56, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, Nagel fails to disclose
Alternatively, with respect to claim 56, Nagel discloses the method according to claim 44, except for wherein the first fluid is a base and the second fluid is an acid.
However, Paltz teaches a system (Figs. 1-6) for reacting at least two fluid chemicals (Col. 1, lines 8-17) with each other, comprising: at least two of the jet ejector arrangements (20 and 21) and a container (11), a recirculation line (17, 17’, 19, 19’) having an inlet (at 13) in fluid communication with the content of the container, and an outlet (at 20 and 21) in fluid communication with the content of the container; and means for feeding (18, 18’) part of the content of the container to the recirculation line, wherein a first fluid is a base (basic constituents) and a second fluid is an acid (fertilizer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of mixing a base fluid and a second acidic fluid, as taught by Paltz, to Nagel’s system, in order to mix the base and acidic fluids (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Chainer et al. (US 20130317785. Chainer hereinafter).
With respect to claim 57, Nagel discloses a method for designing a jet ejector arrangement (Figs. 1-3), comprising steps of:
providing a jet ejector (Fig. 2) having an elongated body, comprising:
an internal nozzle (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having a base (at point 1) and a tip (at 2) and, on a common longitudinal (vertical) axis, an inlet (at point 1. Col. 3, lines 40-43) for a motive fluid (liquid) at the base and an outlet (opening at 2) for the motive fluid at the tip;
a hollow tube (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having a base (at 12) surrounding the internal nozzle and extending (in the direction) downstream to the tip, wherein a flow (downward) direction in the hollow tube is defined by a flow direction of the motive fluid, for (capable of) mixing and reacting the motive fluid with an additional fluid feed (gas from 12 and 13) in a reaction zone (immediately downstream of 2) in the hollow tube, thereby providing a reacted (mixed) fluid;
an opening in a wall of the hollow tube (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) for entry of the additional fluid feed (gas from 13); and
a diffusor (9) downstream the hollow tube, wherein the flow direction is aligned with the flow direction in the hollow tube, downstream the reaction zone, for (capable of) expanding the reacted fluid, thereby producing an expanded reacted (mixed) fluid;
providing a feed line (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having an output end (at 9), external to the jet ejector, wherein the output end is not connected (not physically connected in a pipe coupling sense. Same as the Applicant’s invention) to the opening in the wall of the hollow tube (9 is only fluidly connected to tank 7), but is freely located in a vicinity of the opening to (capable of) feed the additional fluid into the opening.
Nagel fails to disclose modeling the location and dimensions of the opening for entry of the additional fluid feed using a computational fluid dynamic modeling tool.
However, Chainer teaches a node liquid cooling loop 404 (fluid recirculating system. Analogous art of the Applicant’s invention) for a server 402 where the location and dimensions of the opening (of inlet 424 and outlet 426 and passage openings connecting components shown in Fig. 4) for entry of the additional fluid feed using a computational fluid dynamic modeling tool ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of modeling the fluid recirculating system using a computational fluid dynamic modeling, as taught by Chainer, to Nagel’s method, in order to perform numerical simulations of the analytical models in search of the most effective fluid recirculating system ([0049], [0078], [0080], [0081], [0088]- [0096]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48 and 52-54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30-57 have been considered but are moot because the new ground rejection (from embodiment of Fig. 2 to the current embodiment of Fig. 1) of Nagel elaborated above.
With respect to the drawing objections, the amended Fig. 3 fails to address the objections listed above. Clarification or correction is respectfully requested.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights