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 .
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are under examination on the merits.
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 16-18 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. It is unclear in which specific step in base claim 1, the limitations recited in dependent claims 16-18 fit in. In addition, in claim 17, the number “100” is not followed by any units.
Claim 12-14 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. In claim 12, the phrase “a culture of culture of at least one microorganism” does not make sense and appears to also lack antecedent basis. Further, in claim 12, it is unclear which microorganism, fungi or bacteria “growth medium” is referred to. Furthermore, it is unknown if the “growth medium” is a single growth medium or whether it is made up of many different growth mediums. Claims 13-14 are merely rejected for depending from claim 12.
Claim 20 is 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. In claim 20, the phrase “the gas holdup” lacks 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:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) as anticipated by Kerfoot et al., “Kerfoot” (US 6,312,605, 11/2001) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kerfoot. Said patent discusses how a combination of sparger, a diffuser and a pressured (accelerated) liquid system with upward flow in a recirculation chamber can control gas bubble size (diameter).
Said patent discloses a sparging system and process for in-situ removal of contaminants from soil and an associated subsurface groundwater aquifer of a site is disclosed. The sparge system is capable of extracting contaminant in the form of gas from groundwater in a gas/gas/water reaction. The system includes at least one microporous diffuser (which can be a perforated plate) having a porosity matched to a soil porosity.
In section XXI., Kerfoot discloses “To generate a higher proportion of micron-sized bubbles, a recirculating liquid flow system under pressure was combined with a porous cylinder, with counter-gravity flow (for segregating bubble size) to create a micro-bubble production chamber. The combination of flow across porous plates has been known to fractionate bubbles to produce small bubbles (see also figure 35).
In claim 1, Kerfoot recites:
“1. A process for removing contaminants, including dissolved chlorinated hydrocarbons and dissolved hydrocarbon products, said process comprising:
evaluating a site to identify contaminants present on the site;
installing an injection well system and sparge system including a sparge apparatus at each injection well of said well system (wherein said system may be considered to be a vessel) ;
selecting an appropriate bubble size range for gaseous exchange with the contaminants, by matching the bubble size range with characteristics of the sparge apparatus and microporous materials used with the sparge apparatus in accordance with results obtained from evaluating the site;
controlling a supply of gas, said gas including an oxidizing gas, while injecting the gas into the site, and alternating water injection with bubble production to provide an even dispersion of bubbles, to promote pulling of contaminants into the bubbles and to decompose the contaminants in a reaction with the gas in the bubbles in the presence of water; and
enhancing decomposition of the contaminants by carrying out the reaction in the presence of a reaction promoter.”.
In section XXV, Kerfoot explains how the rise time of bubbles of different sizes are predicted (see also Table 7). According to Kerfoot, the rise time of bubbles of different sizes was computed for water, giving the upwards gravitational velocity. The upwards velocity provides the positive pressure to push the bubbles through the porous media, following Darcy's equation. The actual rise time is dependent upon the size of the bubble, the frequency of agitation (pulsing) and pressure differential during pulses. By timing the rise rate in the field, the rise time, proportional to upwards pressure, can be calculated. Following in rise time in medium to coarse sand, based upon 15-minute pulse cycles of generation with an equivalent pressure differential of 20 psi at the source, 0.5 ft. change at 30 ft. radius from generation.
In section XXIII, Kerfoot discloses a Recirculation chamber, wherein said chamber is a vessel. Kerfoot further mentions:
(195) The use of the bubble chamber, composed of vertically offset well screens, creates large circular eddies on each side of the C-Sparger.TM. unit when it is placed in an unconfined aquifer. The rise of bubbles, combined with pulsed liquid recirculation between the screens, drives a mass of groundwater vertically which then moves along the surface region before diving below. The net effect is to act as a big vacuum cleaner, sucking water from below and lateral to it and exposing the circulating water to continual treatment and removal of VOCs. The advantages are several:
(196) (1) Rates of reaction within the circulating cell do not diminish (exponentially decay) with distance from the bubble emission source as would be the case if reaction were bubble density dependent. Instead, the recirculating water creates a rate of removal which is uniform within the circulating cell of water. Concentration level then is only affected by initial rate of removal and the absence of influx from another source or upgradient groundwater.
(199) (4) The mixing capacity of recirculation allows mechanics to be used equivalent to Diffused-Air Aeration Process Mechanics. The three-dimensional recirculation cell can be considered similar to the boundaries of a tank (FIG. 38). If groundwater flow is very slow, the cell is considered a fixed reactor with only circulation and no inflow. If groundwater movement is significant, the transfer into the cell is equivalent to inflow and the loss of groundwater downgradient, the discharge effluent.
Therefore, it is believed that given the teachings of Kerfoot as a whole, one can envisage a system of generating bubbles of controlled size distribution and method of preparation thereof, wherein said method comprises sparging gas (in inherently superficial velocities of 30-80 mm/s ) into a vessel containing liquid for air injection, wherein a portion of the liquid in the vessel is accelerated through a perforated plate to create bubbles to be broken by the injected gas, prior to this invention, rendering it obvious.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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, Melenie L Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights