Patent Application 17786050 - CAVITATOR FOR GAS GENERATION

Title: CAVITATOR FOR GAS GENERATION

Application Information

Invention Title: CAVITATOR FOR GAS GENERATION
Application Number: 17786050
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-06-16T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-06-16T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 366
National Sub-Class: 241000
Examiner Employee Number: 68821
Art Unit: 1774
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 4
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.

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 .

Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).

Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.

Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
The references to several Figures in the instant specification do not match the drawing Figure legends as explained below.
The axle 209’, channel 214’ inlet 204’ and cavitators 3’ are not labeled in Figure 2c - see page 14, first paragraph.
Correction is required.
Applicant should thus review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.

INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES, if needed

Replacement Drawing Sheets

Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.

Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.

Annotated Drawing Sheets

A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.

Timing of Corrections

Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.

If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.

Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.

The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the instant specification refers to Figures that do not exist, such as Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 (see page 10). Note the drawing Figures of record are labeled as Figures 1a-1d, 2a-2c, 3a-3f, 4a-4d, and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
The Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because:
a. the inclusion of legal phraseology such as "means" in the abstract is improper.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title is acceptable.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.

The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Claims 1-14 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.

Regarding claim 1, line 5, the phrase "e.g., flow guiding or restricting means” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).

Regarding claim 1, line 5: the word "means" is preceded by the word(s) "cavitation inducing” and “flow guiding or restricting” - it is unclear if these words relate to structure or function. Accordingly, since these words are used as modifiers for the structureless term "means" and may indeed specify no function to be performed, it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the “means”, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967).

Claim 3, line 3: it is unclear what constitutes “sinus curves” - see page 16, line 4.

Claim 8, line 4: “the capillary vanes” lacks antecedent basis.

Claim 10, line 4: “the capillary vanes” lacks antecedent basis.

Regarding claim 11, lines 1-2, the phrase "e.g., vapour from water” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).

Claim 11, lines 13-14: do the “cavitators”, “cavitator channels”, “inlet”, or “outlet” have any relationship to these same elements recited in claim 1?

Claim 13, line 4: “the cavitators” lacks antecedent basis - note claim 12.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.

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.

Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GALE (US 4330215).

The patent to GALE discloses a cavitator having a housing 10, 20 with an inlet 30 and an outlet 78; a rotor 32 with teeth protrusions 42 arranged for rotation within a stator 20 having teeth protrusions 22; the walls of the rotor and stator along with the teeth 22, 42 defining multiple sinuous shaped channels or flow paths therebetween for flow of fluid within the channels that subject the fluid to shear fields (per Figures 1 and 2 reproduced in full below):

PNG
media_image1.png
593
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image2.png
591
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ASAMI et al. (U 2017/0275187) A1.
Per the EPO search report of record dated JAN 31, 2024, ASAMI et al. discloses the subject-matter of claims 1-2,4-5, 7-10 (see Figures 2-5, [0018]-[0168]), namely a cavitator comprising a cavitator inlet (17) and a cavitator outlet, cavitator channels (for example towards 7a, 7b) having a cavitator channel inlet and a cavitator channel outlet, said cavitator channels provided with cavitation inducing means, e.g. flow guiding or restricting means, wave shaped channel walls, protrusions and widenings, surface irregularities such as cavitation generating indentations or a combination thereof, inducing a differentiated pressure within a liquid flowing through the cavitator, an outer cavitator stator and an inner cavitator rotor arranged to rotate relative said outer cavitator stator (see Figure 2), said cavitator being arranged to induce a rotation of the inner cavitator rotor by a liquid flow through the cavitator such that the rotation of the inner cavitator rotor will induce a differentiated pressure within the liquid in the cavitator promoting cavitation in the liquid flowing through the cavitator channels wherein the cavitator channel or channels is subdivided in a first inner channel (towards 7b), formed between a first, innermost wall and a second, middle wall in the cavitator forming a first inner flow path for a fluid, and a second, outermost channel (towards 7a) formed between said second, middle wall and a . third, outermost wall in the cavitator forming a second outer flow path for the fluid.

Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MILLER et al. (US 2016/0185624 A1).
Per the EPO search report dated JAN 31, 2024, MILLER et al. discloses the subject-matter of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 (Figures 2-9B, [0007]-[0066]), namely a cavitator comprising a cavitator inlet (218) and a cavitator outlet (220), cavitator channels (see Figure 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B: 952, 953) having a cavitator channel inlet and a cavitator channel outlet, said cavitator channels provided with cavitation inducing means, e.g. flow guiding or restricting means, wave shaped channel walls, protrusions and widenings, surface irregularities such as cavitation generating indentations or a combination thereof, inducing a differentiated pressure within a liquid flowing through the cavitator, an outer cavitator stator and an inner cavitator rotor arranged to rotate relative said outer cavitator stator (see Figure 8), said cavitator being arranged to induce a rotation of the inner cavitator rotor by a liquid flow through the cavitator such that the rotation of the inner cavitator rotor will induce a differentiated pressure within the liquid in the cavitator promoting cavitation in the liquid flowing through the cavitator channels; wherein the cavitator channel or channels is subdivided in a first inner channel (952, 953), formed between a first, innermost wall and a second, middle wall in the cavitator forming a first inner flow path for a fluid, and a second, outermost channel (between 950 and the Stator) formed between said second, middle wall and a third, outermost wall in the cavitator forming a second outer flow path for the fluid.

Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3072579.
Per the EPO search report dated JAN 31, 2024, EP 3072579 discloses the subject-matter of claims 1-5 and 7-10 (Figures 1-3, [0030]-[0046]), namely a cavitator comprising a cavitator inlet (4) and a cavitator outlet (13), cavitator channels (see Figure 3 that are inside the rotor and outside the rotor 7) having a cavitator channel inlet and a cavitator channel outlet, said cavitator channels provided with cavitation inducing means, e.g. flow guiding or restricting means, wave shaped channel walls, protrusions and widenings, surface irregularities such as cavitation generating indentations or a combination thereof, inducing a differentiated pressure within a liquid flowing through the cavitator, an outer cavitator stator (6) and an inner cavitator rotor (7) arranged to rotate relative said outer cavitator stator (see Figures 8), said cavitator being arranged to induce a rotation of the inner cavitator rotor by a liquid flow through the cavitator such that the rotation of the inner cavitator rotor will induce a differentiated pressure within the liquid in the cavitator promoting cavitation in the liquid flowing through the cavitator channels; wherein the cavitator channel or channels is subdivided in a first inner channel, formed between a first, innermost wall and a second, middle wall in the cavitator forming a first inner flow path for a fluid, and a second, outermost channel formed between said second, middle wall and a third, outermost wall in the cavitator forming a second outer flow path for the fluid.
************************************************************************************************
With regard to the above rejections, the manner in which the recited cavitator is operated (such as the claim language involving “differentiated pressure”, induced rotation of the rotor, cavitation of the liquid, and the like) recites no further structure and as held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." See MPEP 2115.
APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale

While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[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).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.

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.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.

Claims 4-7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GALE, ASAMI et al., MILLER et al. or EP 3072579 in view of BROWN US 6354729 B1).
GALE, ASAMI et al., MILLER et al. or EP 3072579 do not disclose the capillary vanes. BROWN discloses a housing, a rotor 1 arranged for rotation within a stator 4; and the rotor 1 having capillary vanes 15-20 seen in Figures 3a-3f (interpreted as apertures in the rotor with variable cross-section as seen in instant Figure 4c).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the rotor of GALE, ASAMI et al., MILLER et al. or EP 3072579 with capillary vanes as taught by BROWN for the purposes of:
The directional bias of the material flow through the mixer illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2 can therefore be affected significantly by the design of the channels. FIGS. 3a to 3f illustrate some alternative channel designs, in which the direction of the material flow is required to be predominantly upwards in the direction of the arrows shown. FIG. 3a shows a radially convergent channel 15 of the type illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. FIG. 3b shows a slanted channel 16 in which the direction of rotation of the disk affects the directionality of flow within the channel. FIG. 3c shows a radially convergent channel 17 in which the surface area of the inner end is larger than that of the outer end, thereby imposing a greater resistance to flow in one direction than in the other. FIG. 3d shows a pair of radially convergent/divergent channels 18 in which the surface area of the inner end is larger than that of the outer end, thereby imposing a greater resistance to flow in one direction than in the other. FIG. 3e shows a radially convergent channel 19 with a slant in which the direction of rotation of the disk affects the directionality of flow within the channel. FIG. 3f shows a channel 20 with a spring-loaded ball valve 20 in which the ball seats against an orifice to prevent flow in the radially inward direction, while moving off the seat against spring pressure to permit flow in the radially outward direction. The configurations depicted in these Figures are by way of examples only and it will be appreciated that other design configurations are possible. For example, many alternative valving actions to induce or impart a preferential flow direction may be used, such as positive-valving or gating techniques of the diaphragm valve type, or vortex-inducing techniques or fluid amplification techniques. (emphasis added).

From col. 5, line 43 - col. 6, line 6.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

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 COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, IN SUK BULLOCK can be reached on 571-272-1700. 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.

/CHARLES COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1774

4 APR 2025

Patent Application 17786050 - CAVITATOR FOR GAS GENERATION - Rejection

Patent Application 17786050 - CAVITATOR FOR GAS GENERATION

Application Information

Rejection Summary

Cited Patents

Office Action Text

(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months

Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months