DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–15 and 20–25 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 1 recites:
1. A removal device for removing gas bubbles and/or dirt particles from a liquid in a liquid conduit system or for removing particles of a heavier or lighter liquid from the liquid in the liquid conduit system, the removal device comprising:
an entry,
at least one exit,
a housing which defines an inner space,
a main flow channel for a main flow, the main flow channel extending from the entry to the exit at least in part through the inner space, the main flow channel being defined by a first tube and a second tube,
at least one branch flow passage defined between an end of the first tube and an end of the second tube, the branch flow passage allowing fluid communication between the main flow channel and a quiet zone outside the first and second tubes and within the inner space which is defined by the housing, and
at least one return flow passage, the return flow passage allowing fluid communication between the quiet zone outside the first and second tubes and the main flow channel,
wherein the quiet zone has a greater cross-sectional area than the main flow channel and,
wherein the removal device is constructed to branch off only a portion of the main flow, with the result that in use liquid in the at least one quiet zone has a smaller velocity than liquid in the main flow channel, allowing dirt or particles of a heavier liquid to settle and/or allowing gas bubbles or particles of a lighter liquid to rise in the quiet zone.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the claim initially recites “at least one exit” but then refers to “the exit,” making it unclear whether “the exit” refers to one or all of the exits of the “at least one exit.”
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it initially recites “at least one branch flow passage” but then refers to “the branch flow passage,” making it unclear whether “the branch flow passage” refers to one or all of the passages of the “at least one branch flow passage.”
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it initially recites to “at least one return flow passage” but then refers to “the return flow passage,” making it unclear whether “the return flow passage” refers to one or all of the return flow passages of the “at least one return flow passage.”
Claim 1 is also indefinite because “the at least one quiet zone” lacks antecedent basis because the claim initially introduces only a single “quiet zone.”
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted to read:
1. A removal device for removing gas bubbles and/or dirt particles from a liquid in a liquid conduit system or for removing particles of a heavier or lighter liquid from the liquid in the liquid conduit system, the removal device comprising:
an entry,
at least one exit,
a housing which defines an inner space,
a main flow channel for a main flow, the main flow channel extending from the entry to the at least one exit at least in part through the inner space, the main flow channel being defined by a first tube and a second tube,
at least one branch flow passage defined between an end of the first tube and an end of the second tube, the at least one branch flow passage allowing fluid communication between the main flow channel and a quiet zone outside the first and second tubes and within the inner space which is defined by the housing, and
at least one return flow passage, the at least one return flow passage allowing fluid communication between the quiet zone outside the first and second tubes and the main flow channel,
wherein the quiet zone has a greater cross-sectional area than the main flow channel and,
wherein the removal device is constructed to branch off only a portion of the main flow, with the result that in use liquid in the
Claims 2–15 and 20–25 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 3 recites:
3. The removal device of claim 1, wherein the branch flow passage provides direct access from the main flow channel to the quiet zone.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the branch flow passage” refers to one or all of the passages of the “at least one branch flow passage” of claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted to read:
3. The removal device of claim 1, wherein the at least one branch flow passage provides direct access from the main flow channel to the quiet zone.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The removal device of claim 4, wherein the plate extends from the tube vertically in an upward direction until reaches a housing wall of the housing. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because “the tube” lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether “the tube” refers to the “first tube” or the “second tube” of claim 1.
Claims 7, 9 and 13 recite:
7. The removal device of claim 1, wherein the return flow passage is located at an upstream side of the housing, when viewed along the direction of flow in the main flow direction. Emphasis added.
9. The removal device of claim 4, wherein the return flow passage is formed by a third tube extending from an area surrounded by the third tube, the plate and a housing wall into the main flow channel. Emphasis added.
13. The removal device of claim 1, wherein, when seen in side view, an angle α at which the return flow passage extends relative to the main flow channel is greater than (45 minus (90*d/r)) degrees and smaller than (135 minus (90*d/r)) degrees, wherein dis a distance over which the return flow passage protrudes into the main flow channel and r is a radius of the main flow channel. Emphasis added.
Claims 7, 9 and 13 are each indefinite because it is unclear whether “the return flow passage” refers to one or all of the return flow passages of the “at least one return flow passage.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, claims 7, 9 and 13 are interpreted to read:
7. The removal device of claim 1, wherein the at least one return flow passage is located at an upstream side of the housing, when viewed along the direction of flow in the main flow direction.
9. The removal device of claim 4, wherein the at least one return flow passage is formed by a third tube extending from an area surrounded by the third tube, the plate and a housing wall into the main flow channel.
13. The removal device of claim 1, wherein, when seen in side view, an angle α at which the at least one return flow passage extends relative to the main flow channel is greater than (45 minus (90*d/r)) degrees and smaller than (135 minus (90*d/r)) degrees, wherein dis a distance over which the return flow passage protrudes into the main flow channel and r is a radius of the main flow channel.
Claim 21 recites:
21. The removal device of claim 2, wherein the plate extends from the tube vertically in an upward direction until reaches a housing wall of the housing. Emphasis added.
Claim 21 is indefinite because “the tube” lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether “the tube” refers to the “first tube” or the “second tube” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites:
12. The removal device of claim 1, wherein the main flow channel is free of any obstructions. Emphasis added.
The Applicant has not point out where the new limitation that the main flow channel is “free of any obstructions” is supported, nor does there appear to be written description of this limitation in the originally filed application. See MPE 2163.04, subsection I. Instead, the disclosure appears to show obstructions in the main channel 14 (or 222), such as sharp edge 34 (Fig. 2A) or tube 303 (Fig. 24). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 12 is interpreted to read:
12. The removal device of claim 1, wherein a portion of the main flow channel is free of any obstructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1–4, 6–13, 15, 20 and 22–25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cnossen, US 2010/0236409 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cnossen teaches a removal device 10 for removing gas and particles from liquid. See Cnossen [0002]. The removal device 10 reads on the claimed “removal device.”
The removal device 10 comprises a liquid entrance 14, which reads on the “entry.” See Cnossen Fig. 2, [0092].
The removal device 10 also comprises a liquid exit 16, which reads on the “at least one exit.” See Cnossen Fig. 2, [0092].
The removal device 10 further comprises a housing 12 defining an inner space, which reads on the “housing.” See Cnossen Fig. 2, [0092].
The removal device 10 also comprises a channel for main flow of liquid 60. See Cnossen Figs. 5, 12, [0114]. The channel reads on the “main flow channel for a main flow.” The channel for main flow 60 extends from liquid entrance 14 to liquid exit 16 and through the inner space of the housing 12 that allows main flow 60 to pass, as claimed. See Cnossen Figs. 5, 12 [0114]. The channel for main flow 60 is defined by two sections of tube 11, as seen in Fig. 12. See Cnossen Fig. 5, [0092]. The left-hand section of tube 11, from the perspective of Fig. 12, reads on the “first tube” and the right-hand section of tube 11 reads on the “second tube.”
The removal device 10 further comprises passages for branch-off flow 65 (between flow guides 34), which read on the “at least one branch flow passage.” See Cnossen Fig. 5, [0114], [0123]. The passages for branch-off flow 65 are “defined between an end of the [left-hand section of tube 11] and an end of the [right-hand section of tube 11],” as claimed, because the flow guides 34 are located between the downstream end of the left-hand section of tube 11 and the upstream end of the right-hand section of tube 11, as seen in Figs. 5 and 12. The passages for branch flow 65 allow fluid communication between the channel for main flow 60 and a quiet zone 40 outside of the left and right-hand sections of tube 11 and within the inner space of the housing 12, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 5, [0115]. Quiet zone 40 reads on the “quiet zone.”
The removal device 10 also comprises return flow sections 86, which read on the “at least one return flow passage.” See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0125]. The return flow sections 86 allow for fluid communication between the quiet zone 40 outside the left and right-hand sections of tube 11 and the channel for main flow 60, because liquid re-enters the channel for main flow 60 from quiet zone 60 by the return flow sections 86. Id. at Fig. 12, [0115], [0124]–[0125].
The quiet zone 40 has a greater cross-sectional area than the main flow channel 60, as claimed, seen in Fig. 5.
The removal device 10 is constructed to branch off only a portion of the main flow 60, as claimed. See Cnossen [0115]. This results such that, in use, the liquid in the quiet zone 40 has a smaller velocity than the liquid in the channel for main flow 60, as claimed, because the velocity of the liquid drops within the quiet zone 40. Id. This allows dirt or particles of a heavier liquid to settle and allows gas bubbles to rise in the quiet zone 40, as claimed. Id. at [0116], [0123].
PNG
media_image1.png
1178
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cnossen teaches a flow guide 34 is provided at a downstream end of the inner space of housing 12 and upstream of the right-hand return flow section 86, when viewed along the direction of flow in the inner space. See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0101], [0125]. The flow guide 34 reads on the “plate.”
PNG
media_image2.png
1098
1402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Cnossen teaches that the “at least one branch flow passage” (the passages between flow guides 34 that allow downward flow 65 to branch off) provides direct access from the channel of main flow 60 to the quiet zone 40, because the downward flow 65 enters the quiet zone after moving through the branch flow passage. See Cnossen [0115].
Regarding claim 4, Cnossen teaches that a flow guide 34 is provided at an upstream end of the inner space of housing 12 and a downstream end of the left-hand return flow section 86, when viewed along the direction of flow of the channel of main flow 60. The flow guide 34 reads on the “plate.”
PNG
media_image3.png
1035
1372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Cnossen teaches that at least one “opening” is provided by the “plate” 34 at a position adjacent to a wall of the housing 12, as seen in Fig. 12. The opening is “dimensioned to facilitate the passage of air,” as claimed, because air bubbles could flow through the opening. See MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image4.png
1117
989
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cnossen teaches that the left-hand return flow section 86 is located at an upstream side of the housing 12, when viewed along the direction of flow in the channel of main flow 60. See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0125].
Regarding claim 8, Cnossen teaches that the “plate” 34 and the left-hand return flow passage 86 are constructed such that liquid could be forced to flow underneath a lower edge of the plate 34 to reach the left-hand return flow section 86, because fluid from downward flow section 84 is able to flow under the “plate” 34 and into the left-hand return flow section 86. See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0124]–[0125].
Regarding claim 9, Cnossen teaches that the left-hand return flow section 86 is formed by a “third tube” extending from an area surrounded by the “third tube,” the “plate” 34 and a housing wall into the main flow channel, as seen in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
689
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Cnossen teaches that the “third tube” extends substantially transverse to the channel of main flow 60 and when viewed from a side view it extends in a downward direction, as seen in Figs. 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 11, Cnossen teaches that the return flow sections 86 are configured to inject a return flow into a central region of the channel of main flow 60. See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0125].
Regarding claim 12, Cnossen teaches that the channel of main flow channel 60 is free of any obstructions, at least because the main flow channel in the entrance 14 and exit 16 do not have any substantial obstructions, as seen in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 13, Cnossen teaches that any of the return flow sections 86 (channels between flow elements 34 for upward flow 70) extends at an angle of around 90° relative to the main flow channel, as seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 15, Cnossen teaches that the upstream-most return flow section 86 (between flow guides 34 allowing for upward flow 70) is configured to inject the return flow substantially into a central region of the main flow channel upstream of a branch off location of the downstream-most branch flow passage (the passage between flow guides 34 that allows downward flow 65 to branch off), as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 20, Cnossen teaches a method of removing dirt particles or gas bubbles from a liquid comprising providing the removal device 10 and guiding a flow of liquid through the removal device, which is the method of flowing liquid through the removal device 10 to remove dirt particles and air bubbles from the liquid. See Cnossen [0002].
Regarding claim 22, Cnossen teaches that at least one “opening” is provided by the “plate” 34 at a position adjacent to a wall of the housing 12, as seen in Fig. 12. The opening is “dimensioned to facilitate the passage of air,” as claimed, because air bubbles could flow through the opening. See MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image6.png
1196
987
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Cnossen teaches that the “plate” 34 and the right-hand return flow passage 86 are constructed such that liquid could be forced to flow underneath a lower edge of the plate 34 to reach the right-hand return flow section 86, because fluid from downward flow section 84 is able to flow under the “plate” 34 and into the right-hand return flow section 86. See Cnossen Fig. 12, [0124]–[0125].
Regarding claim 24, Cnossen teaches that the right-hand return flow section 86 is formed by a “third tube” extending from an area surrounded by the “third tube,” the “plate” 34 and a housing wall into the main flow channel, as seen in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image7.png
698
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Cnossen teaches that the “third tube” extends substantially transverse to the channel of main flow 60 and when viewed from a side view it extends in a downward direction, as seen in Figs. 5 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cnossen, US 2010/0236409 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Cnossen is interpreted such that a merge location at the downstream most return flow passage (the channel between flow guides 34 allowing for upward flow 70) reads on the “merge location.” See Cnossen Fig. 5, [0118]–[0119]. Cnossen is also interpreted such that a location at the downstream most branch channel (the channel between flow guides 34 allowing for downward flow 65) reads on the “branch-off location.” Id. at Fig. 5, [0114].
Cnossen differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the distance between the merge location and branch-off location, and is silent as to the diameter of the main flow channel. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the distance between a merge location and a branch-off location is less than three times a diameter of the main flow channel. But the distance between the merge location and branch-off location is dictated by the length of the separator device in the middle of the separator 10 with the flow guides 34. It would have been obvious to decrease this length such that the merge location and branch-off location is less than three times a diameter of the main flow channel, to allow the separator 10 to be compact.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
Note that the claims remain rejected as being indefinite for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that Cnossen fails to disclose “at least one branch flow passage defined between an end of the first tube and an end of the second tube” as required by claim 1. See Applicant Rem. filed June 25, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cnossen teaches passages for branch-off flow 65 (between flow guides 34), which read on the “at least one branch flow passage.” See Cnossen Fig. 5, [0114], [0123]. The passages for branch-off flow 65 are “defined between an end of the [left-hand section of tube 11] and an end of the [right-hand section of tube 11],” as claimed, because the flow guides 34 are located between the downstream end of the left-hand section of tube 11 and the upstream end of the right-hand section of tube 11, as seen in Figs. 5 and 12.
PNG
media_image8.png
1408
1500
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The Examiner withdraws the previous double patenting rejections over claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,786,762 B2. Specifically, independent claim 1 is amended to require that the main flow channel is defined by a “first tube and a second tube” with at least one branch flow passage being defined between an “end of the first tube and an end of the second tube” It is noted that the claims of the ’762 patent describe a main flow channel that can be defined by “a plurality of tubes.” The claims of the ’762 patent also describe “at least one branch flow passage” which branches off from the main flow channel. But the claims of the ’762 patent fail to teach or render obvious the at least one branch flow passage being defined between an end of one of the plurality of tubes and an end of another of the plurality of tubes, as required by independent claim 1 of instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776