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 1-9 are pending.
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: 10 (p. 4, line 8).
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.
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 2, 8, and 9 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 2: The limitation “the tank” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8: The limitation “the scrubbing tank” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 9: The limitation “the scrubbing tank” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell (US 4,874,404) in view of Laurie et al. (US 4,273,731).
Regarding claim 1, Boswell discloses a vacuum cleaner (Fig. 3; Abstract) for mixing dust into water and Chlorox and producing a dust-depleted air (col. 2, lines 39-41; col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 6, lines 14-18) (i.e., a gas scrubber device for scrubbing a gas stream using a scrubbing solution) comprising:
a tank 1 for holding a small amount of water filled to a level (col. 3, lines 24-26; col. 4, line 28) (i.e., a scrubbing chamber arranged to contain an operating level of the scrubbing solution therein); and
a PVC pipe 17 leading to an exhaust port 19 (col. 5, lines 33-34, 40-42) (i.e., a discharge passage in communication with the scrubbing chamber above the operating level of the scrubbing solution so as to be arranged to discharge the gas stream from the scrubbing chamber subsequent to the gas stream passing through the scrubbing solution).
Regarding “for scrubbing a waste gas from a gas stream,” this portion of the preamble is interpreted to be a statement of purpose or intended use which does not provide a distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, this text is interpreted as not limiting the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Boswell does not explicitly disclose a manifold supported in the scrubbing chamber adjacent a bottom of the scrubbing chamber at an intermediate location partway between two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber; a gas inlet passage arranged to direct the gas stream into the manifold; a plurality of sparger pipes extending longitudinally from the manifold in two opposing directions from opposing sides of the manifold towards the two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber respectively, each sparger pipe being in open communication with the manifold to receive the gas stream from the manifold, and each sparger pipe including a plurality of discharge openings formed therein below the operating level of the scrubbing solution so as to be arranged to discharge the gas stream into the scrubbing solution in the scrubbing chamber.
Laurie discloses a gas injection device for use in apparatus for promoting gas/liquid exchange (Figs. 3, 4; col. 1, lines 4-6). Laurie discloses:
a common manifold M for supplying air from a source of air (col. 2, lines 60-61), the manifold located at the bottom of a conduit bore bounded by walls A-D, between walls B and D (col. 2, lines 45-46) (i.e., a scrubbing chamber), and appearing to be supported by deflector plates T (Fig. 5; col. 3, lines 40-43) (i.e., a manifold supported in the scrubbing chamber adjacent a bottom of the scrubbing chamber at an intermediate location partway between two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber);
a downpipe R to which is fed a supply S of air for the manifold M (col. 3, lines 35-36) (i.e., a gas inlet passage arranged to direct the gas stream into the manifold);
pipes E fed by the common manifold M with horizontally directed holes for discharging air (col. 2, lines 59-64) for mixing the air and liquid (col. 4, line 35) extending toward walls B and D (Fig. 3) (i.e., a plurality of sparger pipes extending longitudinally from the manifold in two opposing directions from opposing sides of the manifold towards the two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber respectively, each sparger pipe being in open communication with the manifold to receive the gas stream from the manifold, and each sparger pipe including a plurality of discharge openings formed therein below the operating level of the scrubbing solution so as to be arranged to discharge the gas stream into the scrubbing solution in the scrubbing chamber).
Laurie teaches that this configuration can maximize the number of formations or "births' of bubbles for a given volume of air supply (col. 4, lines 46-48).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaner of Boswell by providing a manifold supported in the scrubbing chamber adjacent a bottom of the scrubbing chamber at an intermediate location partway between two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber; a gas inlet passage arranged to direct the gas stream into the manifold; a plurality of sparger pipes extending longitudinally from the manifold in two opposing directions from opposing sides of the manifold towards the two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber respectively, each sparger pipe being in open communication with the manifold to receive the gas stream from the manifold, and each sparger pipe including a plurality of discharge openings formed therein below the operating level of the scrubbing solution so as to be arranged to discharge the gas stream into the scrubbing solution in the scrubbing chamber as taught by Laurie because this configuration can maximize the number of formations or "births' of bubbles for a given volume of air supply (col. 4, lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 2, Boswell discloses a tank 1 that is elongated in a longitudinal direction (Figs. 1, 3), and Laurie discloses conduit bore elongated in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3), so it would have been obvious to provide the embodiment of Boswell in view of Laurie with a scrubbing chamber that is elongated in a longitudinal direction extending between said two opposing ends of the scrubbing chamber. Laurie discloses pipes E that extend from the manifold M in the longitudinal direction of the conduit bore (Fig. 3), so it would have been obvious to provide the embodiment of Boswell in view of Laurie with sparger pipes that extend from the manifold in the longitudinal direction of a tank.
Regarding claim 3, the manifold M of Laurie is centered within the conduit bore (Fig. 3), so it would have been obvious to provide the embodiment of Boswell in view of Laurie with a manifold that is centered between said opposing ends of a scrubbing chamber.
Regarding claim 4, the manifold M of Laurie extends laterally and perpendicularly relative to the longitudinal direction of the conduit bore (i.e., wherein the manifold is elongated in a lateral direction extending perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the scrubbing chamber).
Regarding claim 5, the pipes E of Laurie are spaced evenly on the manifold M (Figs. 2, 4; col. 3, lines 22-25) (i.e., wherein the sparger pipes are joined to the manifold at evenly spaced apart positions in the lateral direction).
Regarding claim 6, Laurie teaches a downpipe R that is centered in the conduit bore (Figs. 3, 5; col. 3, lines 35-36) (i.e., wherein the gas inlet passage communicates with the manifold at a central location in the lateral direction).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Laurie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moss (US 3,815,328).
Regarding claim 7, Boswell in view of Laurie does not explicitly disclose discharge openings that are situated only in a bottom half of each sparger pipe.
Moss discloses compartments for curtailing the polluting effects of exhaust gases by passing exhaust gas into the compartments below the level of a liquid (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 11-12, 34-38). Moss teaches spreader pipes 31, 31' and 32,32' (i.e., sparger pipes) with gas passage apertures 33 about the lower half of their circumference (col. 2, lines 43-46, 49-50) (i.e., discharge openings that are situated only in a bottom half of each sparger pipe). Moss teaches that by discharging gas into the bottom of a reservoir, liquid can substantially remove pollutants over long periods of use (col. 2, lines 1-3; col. 3, lines 61-63).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaner of Boswell in view of Laurie by providing discharge openings that are situated only in a bottom half of each sparger pipe as taught by Moss because, by discharging gas into the bottom of a reservoir, liquid can substantially remove pollutants over long periods of use (Moss, col. 2, lines 1-3; col. 3, lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 8, Moss teaches spreader pipes that are a distance from a bottom wall 24 of each compartment that is less than the height of each spreader pipe (Fig. 1) (i.e., wherein a distance between each sparger pipe and the bottom of the scrubbing tank is less than a height of each sparger pipe).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Laurie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 6,393,836 B1).
Boswell in view of Laurie does not explicitly disclose that a distance between each discharge opening of the sparger pipes and the bottom of the scrubbing tank is less than a height of each sparger pipe.
Huang discloses a treatment device for filtering exhaust (Fig. 4; col. 1, lines 50-53) using a liquid agent 16 (col. 2, lines 17-18). Huang teaches branch pipes 12 (i.e., sparger pipes) with air apertures 122 (col. 2, lines 7, 14-17) that are a distance to the bottom of a main body 10 (col. 2, line 5) of the device that is less than the height of each branch pipe (Fig. 4). Huang teaches that this arrangement allows the liquid agent 16 to solve and attract harmful substances in the exhaust effectively (col. 2, lines 38-43).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaner of Boswell in view of Laurie by providing a distance between each discharge opening of the sparger pipes and the bottom of the scrubbing tank that is less than a height of each sparger pipe as taught by Huang because this arrangement allows the liquid agent 16 to solve and attract harmful substances in the exhaust effectively (Huang, col. 2, lines 38-43).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jaeger (US 2024/0010532 A1) discloses a main air supply manifold 106 feeding diffuser modules 104 extending from the manifold (Fig. 15; [0106]) for the bottom of a water treatment tank ([0008]).
Kim et al. (US 2009/0051057 A1) discloses a diffuser installation structure (Abstract) comprising a manifold 200 feeding air to diffusers 100 extending therefrom (Fig. 7; [0029], [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights