DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0001], applicant should update the status of parent application 17/675,744 by providing the patent number thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 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.
Claim 18 is vague and indefinite in that it depends from itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Kozyuk ‘244.
Kozyuk ‘244 (Abstract; Figs. 2 and 3; col. 2, lines 4-7, 46-67; col. 3, lines 1-3, 19-23, 31-48, 63-67; col. 4, lines 1-4, 10-17, 39-48; col. 5, lines 10-13, 26-27, 46-53, 61-67; col. 6, lines 12-16, 21-28; col. 8, lines 9-11, 49-67; col. 9, lines 7-23; claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16-18) discloses a method of transferring a gas by transferring a transfer liquid (via stream B in Fig. 3) to a receiving liquid (stream A in Fig. 3), wherein the transfer liquid has dissolved therein a selected amount of a gas (see col. 3, lines 31-33, wherein it is stated that the oxidizing agents may include one or “more” of a gas, a vapor, and a liquid), such as oxygen, which would present as a gas under the conditions within the reference device (claim 5). With regard to applicant’s recitation within in claim 1 that “the transfer liquid has dissolved therein a selected amount of a gas, one having basic knowledge within the art would recognize that an oxygen gas in the presence of a liquid, such as water, under conditions, such as those embodied by the reference disclosure, wherein the oxygen existed as a gas and the water or other liquid existed in the liquid phase, a certain (selected) amount of the gas would dissolved within the liquid, thus meeting this noted aspect of the claims. Kozyuk ‘244 further discloses that the transfer liquid is pressurized and forced to travel through a tube (claims 12 and 13) wherein the liquid exits a nozzle (365) into the receiving liquid wherein bubbles are generated within the receiving liquid by cavitation within cavitation fields (370) after having traveled a distance within the receiving liquid from the nozzle means (365), the bubbles subsequently collapsing (claims 1, 11, and 19), causing creation of selected species, including hydroxyl radicals (claims 2, 6, 14, and 18) and ions of the oxidizing agents within the receiving liquid, the radicals and ions causing degradation of waste species (claims 15 and 19), including chemical compounds (claim 16, see col. 3, lines 38-48) via oxidation with the selected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 3, 4, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozyuk ‘244.
Kozyuk ‘244 (Abstract; Figs. 2 and 3; col. 2, lines 4-7, 46-67; col. 3, lines 1-3, 19-23, 31-48, 63-67; col. 4, lines 1-4, 10-17, 39-48; col. 5, lines 10-13, 26-27, 46-53, 61-67; col. 6, lines 12-16, 21-28; col. 8, lines 9-11, 49-67; col. 9, lines 7-23; claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16-18) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 3, 4, 17, and 20, except for the specific recitations that the selected species created include hydroxyl ions, as recited by instant claims 3 and 17; that the created selected species includes at least two of a hydroxyl radical and a hydroxyl ion, as recited by instant claim 7; and that the transfer liquid is saturated with the selected gas, as recited by instant claims 4 and 20.
It is noted that Kozyuk ‘244 discloses the formation of both hydroxyl radicals and ions formed from the oxidizing agents used by the device (col. 8, line 9-11). It is further noted that hydrogen peroxide (col. 3, lines 33-36) may be used by the reference as an oxidizing agent. Wherein it is well known that hydrogen peroxide can be used to form both hydroxyl radicals and hydroxyl ions (also known as an hydroxide ion (OH-)), the ions being formed when the peroxide molecule breaks down in the presence of iron, which would typically form the structure of the device containing the transfer and receiving liquids, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have found it to have been obvious to utilize hydrogen peroxide as a chosen oxidizing agent within the transfer liquid, if the formation of an hydroxide ion (OH-) alone or an hydroxide ion with a hydroxyl radical were desired, as recited by instant claims 3, 7, and 17, as would be based upon the contaminant element within the receiving liquid that was intended to be neutralized.
With regard to the desire to saturate the transfer liquid with a gas, such as oxygen, as recited by instant claims 4 and 20, it is well established within the art that the amount of cavitation bubbles that can be formed within a liquid is directly dependent upon the amount of dissolved gas within a given liquid. Therefore, based upon the desire to decontaminate a receiving liquid to the greatest extent possible, it would have been entirely obvious for an artisan at the time of the invention, to insure that the amount of gas (oxidizing agent, such as oxygen) dissolved within the transfer liquid of the Kozyuk ‘244 process were at its maximum (saturation of the liquid with the desired gas), since such would maximize the amount of cavitation bubble formation and collapse and thus the amount of formation of the selected species to maximize the decontamination capabilities of the process relative to a given contaminated stream.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozyuk ‘244 taken together with JP 2000-254483 A.
Kozyuk ‘244 (Abstract; Figs. 2 and 3; col. 2, lines 4-7, 46-67; col. 3, lines 1-3, 19-23, 31-48, 63-67; col. 4, lines 1-4, 10-17, 39-48; col. 5, lines 10-13, 26-27, 46-53, 61-67; col. 6, lines 12-16, 21-28; col. 8, lines 9-11, 49-67; col. 9, lines 7-23; claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16-18) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 8-10, except for the nucleating of the bubbles near the exit of the nozzle within the receiving liquid, as recited by instant claim 8. It is noted that Kozyuk ‘244 clearly discloses transferring the transfer liquid to the receiving liquid through a nozzle (claim 9) (365) having a uniform internal diameter (claim 10) (see Fig. 3).
JP 2000-254483 A (Fig. 1; Abstract of English Machine Translation) discloses a process similar to that of Kozyuk ‘244, including injecting a transfer liquid having a gas dissolved therein into a receiving liquid within reaction vessel (15) via a nozzle (21), wherein the fine bubble generating means (13) within the means for dissolving gas into the transfer liquid (3), as well as dust in the gas added to the transfer liquid by gas supply means (9, 11) provides for nucleation sites within the liquid near the exit of the nozzle (21) to provide for the ease of formation of cavitation bubbles within the reaction vessel (15) to allow for the generation and collapse of the bubbles within vessel (15) for the creation of radicals and hydrogen peroxide (see the top half of page 5 of the English Language Translation of JP ‘483) to facilitate decomposition of harmful substances within the receiving liquid in the reaction vessel (15). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the invention, to provide for nucleating sites for bubble formation near the exit of the nozzle of Kozyuk ‘244, in view of the teaching by JP ‘483, since such would facilitate the formation of a maximum amount of cavitation bubbles within the receiving liquid, which would provide for the greatest degree of decontamination of the receiving liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/9-26-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights