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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant concludes that Miller does not teach all the limitations of claim 1. Applicant has not pointed out how Miller fails to teach the limitations, merely concludes that Miller does not. Without more, opinion is not evidence. The argument is not persuasive.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smotritskiy US 20210086147.
Regarding claim 1, Smotritskiy discloses a hydrodynamic cavitation system, comprising:
a housing (3) comprising a fluid inlet (8) and a fluid outlet (9);
a circular stator (1) coupled to an interior of the housing and comprising ridges (4) on an interior radial surface (Fig. 1);
a rotor (2) positioned within the circular stator, the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (5) on an exterior radial surface;
a driveshaft (6) coupled to the rotor and extending outwardly from the housing, the driveshaft configured to be driven by a motor (Fig. 1);
wherein as the driveshaft rotates, the rotor rotates within the circular stator (Fig. 1); and
wherein as the rotor rotates within the circular stator, a plurality of cavitation sites are formed (at 10 and at 5).
Note: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Since all the structural limitations of the claim are present, the mere appearance of cavitation sites as a result of employing the motor is not sufficient in and of itself to distinguish over the prior art. The limitations in original claim 10 are distinguished over claim 1’s limitation because the creation of the cavitation sites are tied to specific structures or a combination of specific structures.
Regarding claim 2, Smotritskiy further discloses that the plurality of rotor blades each comprise a first ridge (radially inner one of 5), a second ridge (radially outer one of 5), and a constriction (between 5) between the first ridge and the second ridge.
Regarding claim 3, Smotritskiy further discloses that the rotor blades (5) are positioned from a leading edge of the rotor to a rear edge of the rotor at spaced intervals (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller US 20160185624.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a hydrodynamic cavitation system, comprising:
a housing (210) comprising a fluid inlet (218) and a fluid outlet (220);
a circular stator (436’, Fig. 4B) coupled to an interior of the housing and comprising ridges (vanes forming slots 440’) on an interior surface (Fig. 4B);
a rotor (330) positioned within the stator, the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (332) on an exterior radial surface (Fig. 3);
a driveshaft (212) coupled to the rotor and extending outwardly from the housing, the driveshaft configured to be driven by a motor (Fig. 2);
wherein as the driveshaft rotates, the rotor rotates within the stator (Fig. 2); and
wherein as the rotor rotates within the circular stator, a plurality of cavitation sites are formed (at each of the two ridges on top and bottom of vane, View B, Fig. 4B). See note of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Miller further discloses that the rotor blades are positioned from a leading edge of the rotor to a rear edge of the rotor at spaced intervals (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotritskiy US 20210086147 in view of Beech US 2568536.
Regarding claim 4, Smotritskiy does not teach a door coupled to an exterior surface of the housing and one or more clamps, coupled to the housing, configured to seal and unseal the door.
Beech teaches a pump comprising a door (20) coupled to an exterior surface of the housing and one or more clamps, coupled to the housing, configured to seal and unseal the door (Fig. 1) in order to provide easy access to the interior of the pump (col. 4 ln. 34-39). 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 pump housing as taught by Smotritskiy by utilizing a door with clamps as taught by Beech in order to provide easy access to the interior of the pump.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smotritskiy US 20210086147 in view of Beech US 2568536.
Regarding claim 6, Smotritskiy teaches a distance between the circular stator and the rotor (Fig. 1). However, it does not teach that that distance is 0.1-6.0 cm.
It has been held, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the distance between the rotor and stator being 0.1-6.0 cm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that system of Smotritskiy would perform equally well at creating cavitation within the range claimed, absent persuasive evidence that the particular range is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify distance as taught by Smotritskiy by utilizing the distance as claimed in order to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Smotritskiy teaches a distance between a second stator (19) and the rotor (2, Fig. 1). However, it does not teach that the distance is 0.1-6.0 cm.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the distance between the rotor and a second stator being 0.1-6.0 cm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that system of Smotritskiy would perform equally well at creating cavitation within the range claimed, absent persuasive evidence that the particular range is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify distance as taught by Smotritskiy by utilizing the distance as claimed in order to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Miller US 20160185624 in view of Smotritskiy US 20210086147.
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, it does not teach a hydrophone configured to measure a delta of frequency within the hydrodynamic cavitation system.
Smotritskiy teaches a cavitation system comprising a hydrophone (20) configured to measure a delta of frequency within the hydrodynamic cavitation system in order to diagnose the state of the working bodies ([0057]) and obtain information about the processing regimes ([0093]). 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 system as taught by Miller by utilizing a hydrophone as taught by Smotritskiy in order to obtain information and diagnose issues with the system.
Regarding claim 8, official notice is being taken that pressure gauges are well-known in the art for determining the pressure within a pressurized system and provide that information to ensure safe operation. 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 system as taught by Smotritskiy by uitilizing a pressure gauge coupled to the housing in order to monitor and safely operate that system without exceeding safe pressure limits of the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 and its dependents are allowable for the specific locations of each of the plurality of cavitation sites associated with the first and second stator and rotor.
Claims 12 and 15 are allowable for adding HO and O3 being added to the contaminated liquid prior to the contaminated liquid entering the system.
Claim 13 is allowable for depending from claim 12.
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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745