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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Support for the limitation “the air diffusers are uniformly arranged on the bottom surface of the tank with a spacing between adjacent ones of the air diffusers being greater than the width of the diffusion region” is not provided for in the originally filed disclosure.
Claims 2-10 depend upon claim 1.
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 1-10 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), Funakubo US 2016/0199793 (hereafter Funakubo), Abello et al. US 2007/0126135 (hereafter Abello), Heck US 5,352,391 (hereafter Heck), Messner US 5,015,421 (hereafter Messner ‘421), Messner US 4,624,781 (hereafter Messner ‘781), Redmon US 6,478,964 (hereafter Redmon), Casper et al. US 2008/0251954 (hereafter Casper ‘954), 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, the bottom panel having a rectangular shape (as shown in Fig 50;
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;
an air guiding pipe (449);
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)
the air diffusers are uniformly arranged on the bottom surface of the tank (as show in Fig 6),
the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume (¶8).
Casper does not teach
a longitudinal dimension of 0.5 to 4m;
an air guiding pipe, an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film, a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank;
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 air diffusers are uniformly arranged on the bottom surface of the tank with a spacing between adjacent ones of the air diffusers being greater than the width of the diffusion region;
the method comprising supplying air to the air diffuser at a volume of equal to or larger than 10 [Nm3/(m2-hr)] and 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 longitudinal dimension of Casper, such as to a longitudinal dimension of 0.5 to 4m, in order to affect the oxygen transfer efficiency (Casper ¶16).
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 an air guiding pipe (12), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (14, as shown in Fig 2).
Funakubo teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air guiding pipe (5), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (7, as shown in Figs 1), a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank (as shown in Figs 1), where installing the air guide pipe from above is known in the art (¶21).
Abello teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air guiding pipe (120), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (¶49,soft film 101), a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank (¶49, as shown in Fig 1 where the delivery in the central region would result in the claimed feature).
Heck teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air guiding pipe (4), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (3), a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank (as shown in Figs 1-2).
Messner ‘421 teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air guiding pipe (7), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (2), a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank (as shown in Fig 1).
Messner ‘781 teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) comprising an air guiding pipe (9), an entire circumference of an end of the air guiding pipe being connected to the soft film (2), a direction of a longitudinal axis of the air guiding pipe crossing a horizontal plane in which lie the longitudinal edges and the width-direction edges of the bottom panel, the bottom panel being fixed relative to a bottom surface of the tank (as shown in Figs 1-2).
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 guiding pipe (449) of Casper by incorporating the vertical air guide pipe (Livingston 12; Funakubo 5; Abello 120; Heck 4; Messner ‘421 7; Messner ‘781 9) of the prior art as a matter of obvious combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I A-B) and in order to feed air from above.
Regarding the spacing, Casper further teaches where space to either side of the conduit is open (¶157).
Redmon teaches a method of treating water with an air diffuser (abstract) where the diffusers are space uniformly and the distance between diffusers affects bubble density, liquid density, and currents (col 2 lines 24-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing between adjacent ones of the air diffusers (¶157), such as to be uniformly spaced and the spacing being greater than the width of the diffusion region as a matter of obvious routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II) and in order to affect bubble density, liquid density, and currents (col 2 lines 24-34).
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).
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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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 6-7, Casper in view of Mollen, Livingston, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, 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, Funakubo, Abello, Heck, Messner ‘421, Messner ‘781, Redmon, Casper ‘954, and Hu teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Casper does not state wherein the volume of air supplied to 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).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 10 Apr. 2026:
Applicant argues that support for the limitation “the air diffusers are uniformly arranged on the bottom surface of the tank with a spacing between adjacent ones of the air diffusers being greater than the width of the diffusion region” is provided in ¶31-32.
Examiner disagrees.
¶31 recites in full: “This is first thought to be due to decrease of the air bubble diameter. As the air bubble diameter is smaller, the ratio of the surface area of the air A relative to the volume thereof is higher, and accordingly, oxygen is more likely to be dissolved in the water W. Moreover, the ascending speed of an air bubble is slow, and thus the air bubble stays in the water W for a longer time during which oxygen is dissolved in the water W.”
¶32 recites in full: “It is thought that the air bubble diameter decreases because air bubbles are less likely to coalesce. In the second example (Fig. 10), the supply amount of the air A per air diffuser 4 is smaller than in the reference example (Fig. 7) (when the total supply amount is 2Qa, the supply amount per air diffuser 4 is 2Qa in the reference example and Qa in the second example), and accordingly, buoyant force applied to an air bubble is small and the ascending speed of the air bubble is slow.”
Examiner has not found support for the uniform arrangement or the spacing related to the width.
Applicant argues that air guide pipe as claimed would not have been obvious in view of Livingston.
Examiner disagrees. To support the argument, Examiner has found many teachings of the prior art where the air guide pipe is as claimed which supports the conclusion that the prior art, either individually or in combination, teaches the claimed air guide pipe.
Applicant argues that the claimed flux range is not obvious in view of Livingston because Livingston does not disclose examples of the claimed range, but instead uses examples outside the claimed range.
The argument is not persuasive because, while Livingston does disclose flux ranges outside the claimed range, this does not negate the disclosure of the flux within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that one would not have looked to Livingston to modify Casper.
Examiner disagrees. Livingston teaches aeration (¶9), and thus is in the same field of endeavor as Casper and Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that the deflection taught by Casper would have been unhelpful/irrelevant to one of ordinary skill when determining the flux range.
Examiner disagrees. While Applicant points out that more than one variable affects the deflection, the prior art identification that flux range affects the deflection provides adequate rationale for optimizing the flux range. That the flux range may or may not need to be adjusted based on the width and type of membrane as well does not render the modification of the flux range noo-obvious.
Examiner agrees that Abello does not teach the claimed range.
Applicant argues that because Hu teaches a disc shape that the flux range would not have been obvious to incorporate into the Casper method.
Examiner disagrees. While the disc shape may affect the bubble coalescence, routine experimentation would likely enable one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Hu flux range in the diffuser method of Casper.
Further, the density of the generated bubbles is not necessarily higher for a disc shape, where the density would be affected by variables such as perforation size, perforation shape, diffuser depth, liquid medium, gas pressure, and gas composition. Thus, the disc of Hu does not necessarily produce a higher density of bubbles than Casper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights