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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites the limitation " reduction in contamination " in line 2 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, applicant recites “compressed air and cavitation chamber are the only components used for reduction in contamination.” However, compressors are needed to make compressed air, that is push through injectors into the cavitation chamber, furthermore, so are pump require to push fluid into the chamber. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 8, 10-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (EP 3281919 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a system for treatment of water ¶[0001]comprising: a cavitation chamber having a fluid inlet to receive a water (Fig 1 200) flow comprising Karena Brevis and brevetoxins (¶[0003] red tide is known to be caused by Karena Brevis and Karena Brevis make brevetoxins), a fluid outlet (Fig 1 410), and a cavitation structure operable to cause a cavitation of fluid passing through the cavitation chamber at a predetermined minimum flow rate(Fig 1 380); a pump operable to convey fluid through the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 300); an air compressor in communication with the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 100 ¶[0045]); an injector in communication with the air compressor and positioned so as to introduce compressed air from the air compressor into a flow path upstream of the cavitation structure (Fig 1 700).
Regarding to claim limitation “ to receive a water flow comprising Karena Brevis and brevetoxins” is intended use. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding claim limitation “so as to introduce compressed air from the air compressor into a flow path upstream of the cavitation structure” is material or article worked upon by apparatus The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 1, wherein the cavitation structure is a static mixer comprising a length of sharp edge (Fig 1 330 340).
Regarding claim 3, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 1, wherein the water inlet is in fluid communication with a body of water comprising Karena Brevis and brevetoxins.
Regarding claim 4, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 3, a quantity of water comprising Karena Brevis and brevetoxins within a portion of the cavitation chamber( [0073] and (¶[0003] red tide is known to be caused by Karena Brevis and Karena Brevis make brevetoxins) .
Regarding claim 5, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 4, a quantity of water that does not contain any or only trace amounts of Karena Brevis and brevetoxins at the fluid outlet (¶[0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 1, wherein injector is a venturi injector (Fig 1 700)
Regarding claim 10, Kim A system for treatment of water comprising red tide contamination or a harmful algal bloom comprising ([0001-0004]: a cavitation chamber having a fluid inlet to receive a water flow comprising the red tide contamination or harmful algal bloom (Fig 1, 200) a fluid outlet (Fig 1 410), and a cavitation structure operable to cause a cavitation of fluid passing through at a predetermined minimum flow rate (Fig 1 380 ¶[0045]); a pump operable to convey fluid through the cavitation chamber; (Fig 1 300) an gas inlet in communication with the cavitation chamber(Fig 1 120); a venturi injector in communication with the gas inlet and positioned so as to introduce compressed air or gas into a flow path defined by the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 700 120).
Regarding claim 11, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 10, further comprising an air compressor in communication with the gas inlet(Fig 1 110 120).
Regarding claim 13, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 10, wherein the venturi injector is positioned upstream of the cavitation structure of the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 700).
Regarding claim 14, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 10, wherein the water inlet is in fluid communication with a body of water (Fig 1 200 ¶ [0011]) comprising a harmful algal bloom and/or a contamination of Karena Brevis and brevetoxins.
Regarding to claim limitation “a body of water comprising a harmful algal bloom and/or a contamination of Karena Brevis and brevetoxins.” is intended use. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding claim 15, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 14, further comprising a quantity of water comprising a harmful algal bloom and/or Karena Brevis and brevetoxins within a portion of the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 380).
Regarding to claim limitation “ a quantity of water comprising a harmful algal bloom and/or Karena Brevis and brevetoxins” is intended use. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding claim 16, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 15, further comprising a quantity of water that does not contain any or only trace amounts of harmful algal bloom and/or Karena Brevis and brevetoxins at the fluid outlet (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches A method of treating water comprising the steps of: positioning a fluid intake into a body of water contaminated with Karena Brevis and brevetoxins (¶[0003] and ¶[0011] red tide is known to be caused by Karena Brevis and Karena Brevis make brevetoxins), the fluid intake in communication with a water treatment device comprising a hydrodynamic cavitation chamber (Fig 1 380) and an air compressor for introducing compressed air to fluid flow within the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 110); activating a pump to convey the water through the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 300); activating the air compressor to introduce the compressed air to the water flow (Fig 1 110 700 ¶[0047]); wherein the step of activating the pump comprises conveying fluid at a flow rate sufficient to cause cavitation of the water within the cavitation chamber; and conveying the fluid to the body of water after passing through the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 300 ¶[0051]), the fluid at an outlet of the cavitation chamber having no, or only a trace amount of Karena Brevis or brevetoxin (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 17, wherein the step of activating the air compressor to introduce compressed air to the water flow comprises the step of conveying the compressed air (Fig 1 110) through a venturi injector and injecting the compressed air upstream of a cavitation structure in the cavitation chamber (Fig 1 700).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6, 18, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 1, wherein the air compressor is configured to provide compressed air (Fig 1 100 ¶[0045]) at a pressure of at least 2 atmosphere.
Regarding to the claim limitation “at a pressure of at least 2 atmosphere”, air compressors are configure to produce pressure require for their given method. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the pressure of air compressors.
Regarding claim 18, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 17, wherein the step of activating the air compressor comprises providing compressed air at a pressure of at least 2 atmosphere.
Regarding to the claim limitation “at a pressure of at least 2 atmosphere”, air compressors are configure to produce pressure require for their given method. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the pressure of air compressors.
Regarding claim 19, Kim X system for treatment of water of claim 17, wherein the step of activating the air compressor comprises providing compressed air at a pressure of at least 3 atmosphere
Regarding to the claim limitation “at a pressure of at least 3 atmosphere”, air compressors are configure to produce pressure require for their given method. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the pressure of air compressors.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pote (US 20230103656 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 1, but Kim fails to teach further comprising at least one sensor, the at least one sensor in communication with a computer controller operable to control at least one of the pump and the air compressor.
However, Pote teaches “at least one sensor, the at least one sensor in communication with a computer controller operable to control at least one of the pump and the air compressor.” (Pote Fig 1, 14 15 50 61-65 [0032]). Kim and Pote are considered analogous art to the claim invention because both are in the same field of filtering water using bubblers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would incorporate the teachings of Pote to Kim apparatus to have more precise control of pressure through system.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kim system for treatment of water of claim 10, further comprising an oxygen concentrator in communication with the gas inlet (Pote Fig 13 ¶ [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771 /KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights