DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that no IDS has been filed with this application, however foreign and non-patent literature references have been included. The references included have been reviewed.
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 “one branch (33)…branches whereto a pneumatic injection unit (3) associated with…is connected” 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 § 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 1-14 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.
Regarding All Claims: The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “which being of the type formed from a housing…” It is not clear if the claim is requiring a housing or something “formed from” a housing.
The claim states “wherein one or more water inlets and outlets (2) are established, where the water inlet is divided into at least one branch (33)”. It is not clear if the water inlets and outlets are the same feature or if both at least one inlets and one outlet are required. The claim refers to “the water inlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. There is only support for “one or more inlets and outlets”. It is not clear if one of the at least one is divided into a branch or all of the at least one.
The claim states “assisted by at least one regulation means”. The phrase “assisted by” render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “at least one regulation means” is a structural component of the system or if the regulation means only required to provide a function of assisting.
Line 4 refers to “the incoming water flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim states “branches whereto a pneumatic injection unit (3) associated with one or more equipment…is connected”. It is not clear what branches to the pneumatic injection unit. The figures do not show branch 33 in contact with the pneumatic injection unit 3.
The claim states “is characterised in that it includes ore or mote treated air outlets (7)”. It is not clear what “it” is referring to.
Line 7 refers to “the equipment”, however there is already reference to “one or more equipment”. It is therefore not clear if the limitation is referring to only one of the one or more or all of the one or more equipment.
Line 8 refers to “the water treatment circuit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim states “connected to a distributor tube associated with a series of conduits (5) with and connections (6)”It is not clear if the series of conduits are a part of the system or a feature that the system is “associated with”. The phrase “with and connections” also renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the conduits have connection (with connections) or if there are associated conduits and connections.
Line 10 states “it being provided”. The term “it” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what “it” is limited to.
Line 14 refers to “the air or gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Line 15 refers to “the oxidation technology”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Line 15 refers to “the desired remote area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Lines 16 refers to “the end point of incorporation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim refers to “the hose or hoses”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there are multiple different hoses referred to in claim 1. It is not clear which of the hoses this limitation is limited to (“injector outlet hoses”, “at least one hose…”)
The claim refers to “the pipes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the manual closing and opening valve(s) or automatic machined solenoid valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim refers to “the hose”. It is not clear which hose is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim refers to “the main housing” and “the ventilation air ducts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the hose”. It is not clear which hose is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim refers to “the compressor” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 6:
The claim refers to “the means for measuring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims. It is not clear if this limitation is referring to “one or more meters” or something else.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim further limits the “external control panel”. However the external control panel I sonly required in the alternative in claim 1. It is therefore not clear if the external control panel is being required by claim 7 or not.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim states “in incorporates”. The term “it” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what “it” is being limited to.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim refers to “the ON/OFF timed system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the stop and start of the system during the work process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim refers to “the pipes” and “the adapted oxidation technology”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
The claim uses the phrase “such as”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required or note.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim refers to “the air or gas mixer of mixers” and “the adapted oxidation technology”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
The remaining claims are indefinite are they depend from indefinite claims.
Due to the 112/indefiniteness rejections proper claim mapping for each limitation cannot be done. However what appears to be the closest prior art and identifiable corresponding features are provided below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu (CN 204848404, English machine translation provided), Parra (ES 1235291, English machine translation provided), and Guion (USPN 10,897,920). Lu teaches a system for treatment of water comprising at least a housing (shell) with one or more water inlets and outlet (water inlet pipe and water outlet pipe) (see abstract) wherein the inlet is divided into at least one branch (see fig. 1, there are multiple branches of piping). Lu further teaches at least one regulator means (valves) (see abstract), a pneumatic injection unit (venturi) (see abstract) and equipment for generating oxidizing gas (ozone generator) (see abstract). Lu further teaches a controller (circuit controller board 8) (see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph), flow sensors (see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph), one way valves (see pg. 4 7th paragraph) and external connectors (see fig. 1). Parra teaches a system for the treatment of water and air comprising at least a housing (housing 1), water inlets and outlets (intakes 2 and outlets 21), branches (two branches 3 and 4) assisted by at least one regulation means (regulating keys 5), a pneumatic injection unit (venturi injection chamber), equipment for generating oxidizing gas (equipment 9) (see abstract). Parra further teaches at least controllers, sensors, mixers (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights