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 .
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites “optimized geometry” in line 1 without sufficiently detailing how one would go about determining what would constitute this optimization. Examiner requests clarification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,523,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘130 teaches all material aspects of the claims in 1-5 and 7-8.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,523,130 in view of Mahoney (10,962,028).
Re claim 6: ‘130 is not explicit about the sparger head is manufactured using a metal additive manufacturing technique to achieve precise internal geometries. However, similarly functioning venturi heads are well known to be manufactured using a metal additive manufacturing technique to achieve precise internal geometries (see Fig. 2A/2B in Mahoney). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a additive manufacturing as taught by Mahoney into the apparatus of ‘130 to save on costs and time of manufacture (see paragraphs 2-3).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whiteside (US 9,902,630).
Claim 1: Whiteside discloses a gas sparger head (Fig. 20), comprising a venturi shaped passage extending through the gas sparger head (note passage within 1371); and a bubble orifice comprising a plurality of gas orifices (note small diameter passages of 1375) radially spaced about a narrow portion of the venturi shaped passage, each of the plurality of gas orifices having a corresponding resonant chamber (note 4 large chambers of 1375 for incoming compressed gas) through which compressed gas is provided (Fig. 20).
Claim 4: Whiteside further discloses that the compressed gas is provided to the plurality of gas orifices with an even distribution of pressure (as there is not prioritization of the gas provided to each of the passageways of 175, there will be an even distribution of pressure amongst them).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteside (US 9,902,630).
Claim 3: Whiteside discloses the previous limitations. While not explicit about an optimized geometry adjacent to or within the resonant chambers acts to control resonance of bubble release from the sparger head, such omission is immaterial as it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the geometry around the resonant chambers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteside (US 9,902,630) in view of Mahoney (10,962,028).
Claim 6: Whiteside discloses the previous limitations. Whiteside is not explicit about the sparger head is manufactured using a metal additive manufacturing technique to achieve precise internal geometries. However, similarly functioning venturi heads are well known to be manufactured using a metal additive manufacturing technique to achieve precise internal geometries (see Fig. 2A/2B in Mahoney). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a additive manufacturing as taught by Mahoney into the apparatus of Whiteside to save on costs and time of manufacture (see paragraphs 2-3).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteside (US 9,902,630) in view of Lembcke (US20060076145A1).
Claim 5: Whiteside discloses the previous limitations. Whiteside is not explicit about an orifice plate used to control the resonance release of the bubbles from the sparger. However, Lembcke teaches an air lift device that includes an orifice plate (note annular plate encircling 183/186 in Fig. 3 in which gas input towards resonant chamber 186 is controlled). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize an orifice plate as taught by Lembcke into the apparatus of Whiteside so as to situate gas control elements such as inlet valves such as 183 which will prevent backflow).
Claim 7: Whiteside discloses the previous limitations. Whiteside is not explicit about a linear string of spargers along a central pipe to distribute the compressed gas to each of the plurality of gas orifices through the corresponding resonant chamber, the idea of using a plurality of gas lift devices along a central pipe to distribute the compressed gas is well known as shown by Lembcke (see Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a plurality of gas lift devices / spargers as taught by Lembcke into the apparatus of Whiteside in order to increase bubble generation and the upward liquid flow.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteside (US 9,902,630) in view of Stirling (US0857768A).
Claim 8: Whiteside discloses the previous limitations. Whiteside is not explicit about the gas sparger head comprises a threaded or welded connection at top and bottom. However, Stirling teaches a gas sparger head which comprises a threaded or welded connection at top and bottom (see, e.g., Fig. 4, noting threads at top and bottom of g’). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize threaded connections in order to easily connect or remove the head to inlet outlet piping, simplifying assembly/disassembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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: regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination that the corresponding resonant chambers are spherical.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights