DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10-11 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 10 recites the limitation "the air-sending volume". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the air diffusers are “equally disposed” on a bottom surface. It is unclear how the diffusers can be disposed of equally.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casper US 2004/0124550 (hereafter Casper) and further in view of Mollen US 2015/0001744 (hereafter Mollen), Livingston et al. US 2016/0280573 (hereafter Livingston), Casper et al. US 2008/0251954 (hereafter Casper ‘954), Abello et al. US 2007/0126135 (hereafter Abello), and Hu et al. US 2010/0133709 (hereafter Hu).
Regarding claim 1, Casper teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (Fig 50), the air diffuser comprising:
a bottom panel (424 including end sections) provided in a horizontal direction in a tank in which water is filled (¶2), the bottom panel including longitudinal edges (423) extending in a longitudinal direction and width-direction edges (444) at longitudinal ends of the bottom panel;
an air diffusion body (452) formed as a soft film (¶347, membrane is lifted by gas pressure) and installed to cover the bottom panel from above;
a frame (frame comprising 461, 465) that covers the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the soft film being sandwiched between the bottom panel and the frame (¶339-348, see o-rings 457); and
air diffusion holes arranged to penetrate through the soft film (¶199-201),
wherein
a gap (469) is defined between the bottom panel and the soft film within an area defined by the frame, the gap being in communication with the air diffusion holes and allowing gas fed into the gap to be discharged into water through the air diffusion holes (¶339-348, Figs 50-53),
the air diffuser allows pressure of the gas to deform the soft film upward at all points within the frame (¶339-348, Figs 50-53), and
an air diffusion region (region between strips 461) of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width (distance from one strip 461 to opposing strip 461)
Casper does not state an air diffusion region of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 120 mm, the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of equal to or smaller than 60 [Nm3/(m2-hr)].
Casper further teaches:
“The bodies may be of any desired width, consistent with having a length to width ratio consistent with strip diffusers. For example, widths of at least about four or at least about six inches are contemplated, as are of up to about ten or about twelve inches or more. Generally, it is considered good practice to select widths at which the membrane has little if any tendency toward “bagging”, i.e., failing to elastically retract sufficiently in non-operating condition to lie smoothly, without humps, against the membrane support member upper surface.” (Casper ¶186);
“Where there is this greater length to width ratio, it is possible to provide the diffuser with considerable aeration area while limiting its width. Diffuser area, utilized properly, can be a factor in attaining desired or increased levels of OTE (oxygen transfer efficiency), with resultant conservation of electricity during processing of a given amount of wastewater. Strip diffusers hold promise of a convenient way of increasing the mass transfer rate of oxygen into wastewater while maintaining OTE levels at least approximately consistent with disk diffusers. Also, in many instances it is possible to limit the width of the membrane in a strip diffuser to a sufficient extent that an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs can be dispensed with. On the other hand, in common with panel diffusers, strip diffusers include membranes and diffuser bodies which include membrane supports.” (Casper ¶16).
MPEP §2144.05 II states that where the prior art recognizes a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to have a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 120 mm, in order to affect bagging (Casper ¶186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to limit the width (Casper (¶16) to a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 120 mm, in order to dispense with an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs (Casper ¶16).
Mollen teaches an air diffuser (Figs 2-4) comprising a bottom panel (12), an air diffusion body (13), air diffusion holes (¶37, perforations) a gap between the bottom panel and the air diffusion body is discharged into water through the air diffusion holes (¶39), and an air diffusion region (region of 13) of the air diffusion body where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 50mm (¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width (Fig 50) of Casper by incorporating the width equal to or larger than 50mm (¶40) of Mollen as a matter of obvious change in size (MPEP §2144.04 IV A).
The modification would have resulted in an air diffusion region of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 120 mm in order that the air bubbles discharged through the air diffusion holes are less likely to coalesce.
Livingston teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (panel opposite body 14 in Fig 1), an air diffusion body (14), and a frame (side portion in Fig 1), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 0 to 300 [Nm3/(m2-hr)].
Casper ‘954 teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (571 in Fig 42), an air diffusion body (587), and a frame (613), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume where the volume affects the diffusion body deflection (¶354, ¶224-227).
Abello teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air diffusion body (102), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 8-119 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶22, 5-74 cm3/min-m2 at STP, assumed nominal cubic centimeter) more preferably a volume of 40-70 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶22, 24-44 cm3/min-m2 at STP) and where the volume depends on the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (¶51).
Hu teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (21), an air diffusion body (3), and a frame (5), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 38 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶31, 30L/min from a disc with a diameter of 24.6cm, assumed nominal liter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air volume to the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) by incorporating the volume of 38 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Hu (¶31) in order to affect the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to accommodate the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air volume to the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) by incorporating the volume of 0-300 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Livingston (¶31) and/or the volume of 8-119 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) and/or the volume of 40-70 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) in order to affect the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to accommodate the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51). Further, MPEP 2144.05 I states that where prior art and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case exists to choose the overlapping portions of the ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to select the volume of 0-60 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Livingston (¶31) and/or the volume of 8-60 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) and/or the volume of 40-60 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22).
Further, MPEP 2144.05 II states that where the prior art teaches a result effective variable, a prima facie case exists to optimize the variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) optimizing the air volume to be equal to or smaller than 60 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] in order to optimize the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to optimize for the selected size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51).
Regarding claim 2, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1. Casper further teaches wherein the air diffusion holes are arranged in an entire range of the soft film in a width direction (as shown in Figs 50-53).
Regarding claim 3, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not teach wherein the air diffusion holes are arranged in a partial region of the air diffusion body in a width direction.
Mollen teaches wherein the air diffusion holes are arranged in a partial region of the air diffusion body in a width direction in order to divide the aerating elements into perforated area and non-perforated areas (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air diffuser (Fig 50) of Casper by incorporating the non-perforated strips (Figs 4) in order to divide the aerating elements into perforated area and non-perforated areas (¶43).
Regarding claim 4, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1. Casper further teaches wherein the air diffusion body is contained within an outline of the bottom panel, as seen in a plan view (as shown in Figs 50-53).
Regarding claim 5, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not teach wherein the air diffusion region of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 30 mm and equal to or smaller than 90 mm.
Casper further teaches:
“The bodies may be of any desired width, consistent with having a length to width ratio consistent with strip diffusers. For example, widths of at least about four or at least about six inches are contemplated, as are of up to about ten or about twelve inches or more. Generally, it is considered good practice to select widths at which the membrane has little if any tendency toward “bagging”, i.e., failing to elastically retract sufficiently in non-operating condition to lie smoothly, without humps, against the membrane support member upper surface.” (Casper ¶186);
“Where there is this greater length to width ratio, it is possible to provide the diffuser with considerable aeration area while limiting its width. Diffuser area, utilized properly, can be a factor in attaining desired or increased levels of OTE (oxygen transfer efficiency), with resultant conservation of electricity during processing of a given amount of wastewater. Strip diffusers hold promise of a convenient way of increasing the mass transfer rate of oxygen into wastewater while maintaining OTE levels at least approximately consistent with disk diffusers. Also, in many instances it is possible to limit the width of the membrane in a strip diffuser to a sufficient extent that an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs can be dispensed with. On the other hand, in common with panel diffusers, strip diffusers include membranes and diffuser bodies which include membrane supports.” (Casper ¶16).
MPEP §2144.05 II states that where the prior art recognizes a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to have a width equal to or larger than 30 mm and smaller than 90 mm, in order to affect bagging (Casper ¶186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to limit the width (Casper (¶16) to a width equal to or larger than 30 mm and smaller than 90 mm, in order to dispense with an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs (Casper ¶16).
Regarding claim 6, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not teach wherein the air diffusion region of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and equal to or smaller than 90 mm.
Casper further teaches:
“The bodies may be of any desired width, consistent with having a length to width ratio consistent with strip diffusers. For example, widths of at least about four or at least about six inches are contemplated, as are of up to about ten or about twelve inches or more. Generally, it is considered good practice to select widths at which the membrane has little if any tendency toward “bagging”, i.e., failing to elastically retract sufficiently in non-operating condition to lie smoothly, without humps, against the membrane support member upper surface.” (Casper ¶186);
“Where there is this greater length to width ratio, it is possible to provide the diffuser with considerable aeration area while limiting its width. Diffuser area, utilized properly, can be a factor in attaining desired or increased levels of OTE (oxygen transfer efficiency), with resultant conservation of electricity during processing of a given amount of wastewater. Strip diffusers hold promise of a convenient way of increasing the mass transfer rate of oxygen into wastewater while maintaining OTE levels at least approximately consistent with disk diffusers. Also, in many instances it is possible to limit the width of the membrane in a strip diffuser to a sufficient extent that an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs can be dispensed with. On the other hand, in common with panel diffusers, strip diffusers include membranes and diffuser bodies which include membrane supports.” (Casper ¶16).
MPEP §2144.05 II states that where the prior art recognizes a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to have a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 90 mm, in order to affect bagging (Casper ¶186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to limit the width (Casper (¶16) to a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 90 mm, in order to dispense with an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs (Casper ¶16).
Regarding claims 7-8, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper further teaches an air guiding pipe (449) for feeding the gas to the gap between the bottom panel and the soft film, the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (as shown in Fig 52 where 442 clamps the film to the end of the pipe); wherein the air guiding pipe is connected to an end part of the soft film (as shown in Figs 50, 52).
Regarding claim 9, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not teach wherein the air diffusion region of the soft film where the air diffusion holes are arranged has a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and equal to or smaller than 50 mm.
Casper further teaches:
“The bodies may be of any desired width, consistent with having a length to width ratio consistent with strip diffusers. For example, widths of at least about four or at least about six inches are contemplated, as are of up to about ten or about twelve inches or more. Generally, it is considered good practice to select widths at which the membrane has little if any tendency toward “bagging”, i.e., failing to elastically retract sufficiently in non-operating condition to lie smoothly, without humps, against the membrane support member upper surface.” (Casper ¶186);
“Where there is this greater length to width ratio, it is possible to provide the diffuser with considerable aeration area while limiting its width. Diffuser area, utilized properly, can be a factor in attaining desired or increased levels of OTE (oxygen transfer efficiency), with resultant conservation of electricity during processing of a given amount of wastewater. Strip diffusers hold promise of a convenient way of increasing the mass transfer rate of oxygen into wastewater while maintaining OTE levels at least approximately consistent with disk diffusers. Also, in many instances it is possible to limit the width of the membrane in a strip diffuser to a sufficient extent that an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs can be dispensed with. On the other hand, in common with panel diffusers, strip diffusers include membranes and diffuser bodies which include membrane supports.” (Casper ¶16).
MPEP §2144.05 II states that where the prior art recognizes a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to have a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 50 mm, in order to affect bagging (Casper ¶186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the Casper air diffusion region, such as to limit the width (Casper (¶16) to a width equal to or larger than 10 mm and smaller than 50 mm, in order to dispense with an overlying grid member and its attendant manufacturing costs (Casper ¶16).
Regarding claim 10, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not state wherein the air sending volume of the air diffuser is equal to or smaller than 40 [Nm3/(m2-hr)].
Livingston teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (panel opposite body 14 in Fig 1), an air diffusion body (14), and a frame (side portion in Fig 1), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 0 to 300 [Nm3/(m2-hr)].
Casper ‘954 teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (571 in Fig 42), an air diffusion body (587), and a frame (613), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume where the volume affects the diffusion body deflection (¶354, ¶224-227).
Abello teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air diffusion body (102), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 8-119 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶22, 5-74 cm3/min-m2 at STP, assumed nominal cubic centimeter) more preferably a volume of 40-70 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶22, 24-44 cm3/min-m2 at STP) and where the volume depends on the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (¶51).
Hu teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising a bottom panel (21), an air diffusion body (3), and a frame (5), the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of 38 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] (¶31, 30L/min from a disc with a diameter of 24.6cm, assumed nominal liter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air volume to the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) by incorporating the volume of 38 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Hu (¶31) in order to affect the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to accommodate the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air volume to the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) by incorporating the volume of 0-300 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Livingston (¶31) and/or the volume of 8-119 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) and/or the volume of 40-70 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) in order to affect the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to accommodate the size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51). Further, MPEP 2144.05 I states that where prior art and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case exists to choose the overlapping portions of the ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to select the volume of 0-40 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Livingston (¶31) and/or the volume of 8-40 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22) and/or the volume of 40 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] as taught by Abello (¶22).
Further, MPEP 2144.05 II states that where the prior art teaches a result effective variable, a prima facie case exists to optimize the variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Casper method of treating water (Fig 50) optimizing the air volume to be equal to or smaller than 40 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] in order to optimize the diffusion body deflection (Casper ‘954 ¶354, ¶224-227) and in order to optimize for the selected size and shape of the panel and the types and configurations of the perforations (Abello ¶51).
Regarding claim 11, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Casper ‘954, Abello, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not teach wherein a plurality of the air diffusers is equally disposed on a bottom surface of the tank.
Casper teaches where the plurality of the air diffusers my be disposed on a bottom surface of the tank in many arrangements (¶265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disposition of the Casper air diffusers (Fig 50) by having the disposition be equal in order to properly aerate the tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776