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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite for failing to set forth any active steps involved in the method of treating a wastewater, comprising using the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use of a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. As currently presented, claim 4 does not set forth any active steps involved in the process (e.g., how to use the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor for treating a wastewater) and it is unclear what process applicant is intending to encompass. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Talabazar et al., (Design and fabrication of a vigorous “cavitation-on-a-chip” device with a multiple microchannel configuration, Microsystems & Nanoengineering 2021, 7, 44, pp. 1-13, hereinafter as “Talabazar”) in view of Ghorbani et al., (Hydrodynamic cavitation in microfluidic devices with roughened surfaces, J. Micromech. Microeng., 2018, 28, pp. 1-13, hereinafter as “Ghorbani”), and Prakash et al., (US 2008/0185057 A1, hereinafter as, “Prakash”)
Regarding claim 1, Talabazar discloses teaches a hydrodynamic cavitation reactor in the form of a cavitation-on-a-chip microfluidic device configured to generate hydrodynamic cavitation using a working fluid (Abstract; p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, lines 1-8). Talabazar expressly employs water and a PVA-microbubble suspensions as a working fluid and provides eight parallel structured microchannels for hydrodynamic cavitation. Talabazar discloses a hydrodynamic cavitation reactor (p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, lines 1-8; Figure 4 shows cavitation bubble generation inside the microfluidic device, which has eight parallel microchannels with sidewall roughness elements) comprising:
fluid inlet supplying water/PVA working fluid to the microfluidic cavitation device (p. 5, left column, Experimental set-up and procedure section, second paragraph, lines 1-4) (at least one inlet port for supplying a working fluid);
inlet channel directing the working fluid toward the flow-restricted microchannels (p. 3, Materials and methods section, right column, lines 1-12) (at least one inlet port for supplying a working fluid),
extended/extension region downstream of the microchannels (p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, third paragraph, lines 1-3) (at least one extension channel),
eight parallel structured short microchannels receiving fluid from the inlet region and discharging into the extension region, wherein hydrodynamic cavitating flow is generated (Abstract, p. 3, right column, lines 1-3; p. 5, Demonstration of HC occurrence inside the multiple microchannel configuration section, right column, first paragraph, line 1 thru paragraph 2, line 3) (at least one microchannel, wherein a cavitation occurs in the at least one microchannel for a fluid flow in a fluid communication with the at least one inlet channel and the at least one extension channel),
downstream flow passage communicating from the extension region toward the outlets (c, Fig. 1c shows the outlets of the parallel microchannels; p. 3 right column line 1 thru p. 4 left column, first paragraph, line 16) (at least one outlet channel),
outlets formed in the microfluidic chip for discharge of the working fluids (c, Fig. 1c shows the outlets of the parallel microchannels; p. 3 right column line 1 thru p. 4 left column, first paragraph, line 16) (at least one outlet port for draining the working fluid from a reactor housing),
triangular engineered roughness elements provided on the lateral /sidewalls of the restrictive microchannels to promote cavitation (p. 2, right column, second paragraph, lines 3-6) (at least one type of a side wall roughness element on a wall of the at least one microchannel); and continuous inlet to restrictive microchannel to extension region to outlet fluid-flow arrangement (p. 3, Materials and methods section, right column, lines 1 thru p. 4, left column, line 12)
the disclosed flow connection where the continuous inlet is connected to the restrictive microchannel to the extension region, to the outlet fluid-flow arrangement (p. 3, Fig 1a shows the overall configuration of the device; p. 3, Materials and methods section, right column, line 1 thru p. 4, line 17). Talabazar additionally measure upstream pressure at the entrance of the cavitation device and determines flow rate at the outlet (p. 7, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-22) (wherein the at least one inlet channel is configured to connect the at least one inlet port, to the at least one microchannel; the at least one outlet channel is configured to connect the at least one outlet port, to the at least one extension channel, the at least one extension channel is configured to connect the at least one outlet channel to the at least one microchannel).
But Talabazar does not disclose:
(I) at least one type of surface roughness element selected between nanoparticle, nano grass, and micro pilar on the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor on a surface of the at least one inlet channel, the at least one microchannel, the at least one extension channel. and the at least one outlet channel
(II) at least one pressure port for measuring a pressure of the working fluid constructed and arranged for a selective communication with the at least one microchannel, the at least one inlet channel, and the at least one extension channel.
Regarding (I), Ghorbani teaches hydrodynamic cavitation-on-a-chip using microfluidic devices having deliberately roughened channel surfaces and restrictive microchannels connected to a larger downstream “extended channel” (Abstract; p. 8, Results and discussion section, right column, first paragraph, lines 1-5). Ghorbani discloses surface roughness produced on the microchannel surfaces, including the nanostructured rough surface subsequently identified in this same cavitation research as a nano-grass structure and port that the roughened surface devices produce more intense cavitating flows than corresponding smooth surface devices (Abstract; p.12 left column, lines 3-13).
Regarding (II), Prakash teaches microfluidic pressure measurement in complex microchannel networks and expressly discloses that pressure ports can be constructed along a microchannel, wherein pressure measurement is obtained using a port communicating with the microchannel (Abstract; ¶ [0104]). Prakash discloses a central microchannel (210, Fig. 2) having a plurality of side branches (230, Fig. 2) connected to the main channel for obtaining pressure readings along the fluid-flow path, thereby providing an accurate pressure reading at a precise channel location (¶ [0104-0105]).
Talabazar, Ghorbani and Prakash are analogous art because Talabazar and Ghorbani are directed to hydrodynamic cavitation in microfluidic channel systems employing pressure-driven flow and engineered channel roughness while Prakash is reasonably pertinent to the pressure-measurement problem presented by such microfluidic flow system because it specifically teaches integrated pressure ports for measuring pressure at selected locations in microchannel network.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydrodynamic cavitation microfluidic reactor of Talabazar with Ghorbani’s nano grass surface roughness because that roughened channel surfaces provide more intense cavitating flows than smooth surfaces, thereby predictably providing additional cavitation-nucleation sited and promoting cavitation inception (Ghorbani: Abstract; p.12, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-24); it would have been further obvious to incorporate Prakash’s pressure-port arrangement into Talabazar pressure-monitored microfluidic reactor because that pressure ports positioned along microchannels provide accurate pressure measurements at precise locations in a microfluidic network, thereby predictably permitting localized measurement of the pressure distribution and pressure drop governing hydrodynamic cavitation (Prakash: Abstract; ¶¶ [0089, 0140, 0149]).
In regard to claim 2, as set forth above, in light of the teachings of Talabazar in view Ghorbani and Prakash, as applied to claim 1, discloses the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor. Talabazar further discloses eight parallel structured short microchannels/micro-orifices arranged in the cavitation-on-a-chip device (Abstract; p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-12; Fig. 4 shows cavitation bubble generation inside the microfluidic device, which has eight parallel microchannels with sidewall roughness elements) (a number of at least one microchannel is equal to or greater than two). Talabazar states that the device contains eight parallel microchannels and that cavitation occurs in all of the parallel channels (p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-12; Fig. 4 shows cavitation bubble generation inside the microfluidic device, which has eight parallel microchannels with sidewall roughness elements).
In regard to claim 3, the combination, in the light of the teachings from Talabazar in view Ghorbani and Prakash, as applied to claim 2, discloses the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor with at least two microchannels. Talabazar further discloses eight short parallel microchannels/micro-orifices arranged in a parallel multichannel configuration (p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-12; Fig. 4 shows cavitation bubble generation inside the microfluidic device, which has eight parallel microchannels with sidewall roughness elements) (the at least two microchannels are parallel to each other). Talabazar further demonstrates cavitation occurring in all eight parallel channels (p. 5, Results and discussion section, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-12; Fig. 4 shows cavitation bubble generation inside the microfluidic device, which has eight parallel microchannels with sidewall roughness elements).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Talabazar in view of Ghorbani, and Prakash, and further in view of Zupanc et al., (Removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater by biological processes, hydrodynamic cavitation and UV treatment, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2013, 20, pp. 1104-1112, hereinafter as “Zupanc”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination, in the light of the teachings of Talabazar in view Ghorbani and Prakash, as applied to claim 1, discloses a hydrodynamic cavitation reactor, but does not clearly disclose a method of treating wastewater comprising using the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor according to claim 1.
However, Zupanc teaches treatment of wastewater containing pharmaceutical contaminants using hydrodynamic cavitation (Abstract; p. 1105, right column, second paragraph, line 1 thru third paragraph line 10). Zupanc specifically evaluates hydrodynamic cavitation/H2O2 on biologically treated wastewater effluents and measures pharmaceutical-removal efficiency (p. 1105, right column, second paragraph, line 1 thru third paragraph line 10; p. 1111, Conclusion section, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-21).
Talabazar, Ghorbani, Prakash, and Zupanc are analogous art because the former references concern generation and control of hydrodynamic cavitation in fluid-flow reactors, while Zupanc concerns use of hydrodynamic cavitation for treating contaminated aqueous streams.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor of Talabazar, as modified by Ghorbani and Prakash, for treatment of wastewater as taught by Zupanc because the cavitating conditions generate hydroxyl radicals and remove pharmaceutical contaminants from wastewater, thereby predictably providing contaminant degradation/removal in the treated water (Zupanc: Abstract; p. 1111, Conclusion section, left column, second paragraph, line 1 thru fourth paragraph line 6).
In regard to claim 5, the combination, in the light of the teachings of Talabazar in view of Ghorbani, and Prakash, and further in view of Zupanc, as applied to claim 4, disclose treatment of wastewater by hydrodynamic cavitation. Zupanc further discloses removal of carbamazepine and diclofenac (pharmaceutical components) in wastewater by about >98 % (Abstract; p. 1111, Conclusion section, left column, second paragraph, line 1 thru fourth paragraph line 6).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Talabazar in view of Ghorbani, and Prakash.
Regarding claim 6, a method for increasing an intensity of a hydrodynamic cavitation of the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor is taught by Talabazar in view of Ghorbani, and Prakash, as set forth above (discussions about claim 1), comprising:
Talabazar teaches a method for increasing an intensity of hydrodynamic cavitation by providing engineered roughness elements that furnish nucleation sites for bubble generation and thereby produce a high intensity cavitating flows at reduced upstream pressure (Abstract; p. 7 left column line 1 thru right column, line 25). Talabazar explains that lateral-wall triangular roughness elements trigger cavitation by presenting additional nucleation sites and that roughness decreases the pressure drop required for cavitation inception (p. 2, right column, second paragraph, line 1 thru p. 3 left column, first paragraph line 5). Talabazar discloses formation of the microchannel and engineered sidewall features lithographic patterning followed by deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) of the silicon substrate (p. 4, right column, Fabrication procedure of the microfluidic device section, lines 1-30) (engraving of the sidewall roughness element on the wall of the at least one microchannel).
But Talabazar does not disclose applying the at least one type of surface roughness element selected between the nanoparticle, the nano grass, and the micro pilar to provide artificial nucleation sites for a bubble collapse control and intensifications on the cavitation.
However, Ghorbani teaches fabrication of a nano grass structure on the channel surface using an optimized DRIE (p. 5, left column, second paragraph, lines 1-12) (applying the at least one type of surface roughness element selected between the nanoparticle, the nano grass, and the micro pilar to provide artificial nucleation sites for a bubble collapse control and intensifications on the cavitation).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Ghorbani’s nano grass structure on the channel surface on the hydrodynamic cavitation reactor taught by Talabazar because such roughness from the nano grass structure provides lower cavitation-inception pressure, and intensifies cavitation flow, thereby predictably increasing hydrodynamic-cavitation intensity (Ghorbani: Abstract; Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-24).
In regard to claim 7, the combination as applied to claim 6, discloses increasing hydrodynamic cavitation using engineered surface and sidewall roughness and sidewall roughness. Talabazar further discloses that the cavitation is carried out as a pressure lower than 10 bar; reports cavitation inception in water an upstream of 0.62 MPa (approximately 6.2 bar) and cavitation inception using an OVA-microbubble suspension at 0.20 MPA (approximately 2.0 bar) (p. 6, Results and discussion section, right column, lines 8-12); therefore, Talabazar discloses approximately 2.0 and 6.2 bar pressures of the cavitation which is within the claimed pressure range of lower than 10 bar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 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, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights