FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Carson teaches that the element 510 is a spring configured to absorb some of the vertical force imposed upon diaphragm 530…Carson nowhere teaches that the spring 510 of Carson would provide radial compliance” (page 8, Remarks). However, Applicant’s specification as filed is inconsistent with Applicant’s argument. Applicant states that the prior art of US 2015/283561 discloses “The neck bearing is radially supported, via at least one elastic element, in a bearing housing which in its turn is fastened on the drive housing. The elastic element consists of two metal sleeves which are interconnected by means of a ring consisting of elastomer material. The elastic elements of US 2015/283561 that supports the neck bearing permit the spindle to make small radial movements during operation” (page 1 lines 23-37, Specification). Thus Applicant admits that an elastic element consisting of an elastomer ring between two metal sleeves permits radial movements of the spindle. This is the exact function that Applicant argues Carson’s element 510 cannot teach. Carson’s element 510 is described as a “solid elastomer ring” that is “disposed about a load-bearing perimeter of gyro housing 520” (para. [0060]-[0061]). Carson’s solid elastomer ring is structurally analogous to US 2015/283561’s elastomer ring. Applicant’s own admission of US 2015/283561’s elastomer ring as permitting radial movement is inconsistent with Applicant’s current argument that Carson’s structurally equivalent solid elastomer ring 510 does not permit radial movement.
Furthermore, the elastic element of the present invention (elastic element 42) is described as nothing more than an annular rubber element (page 16, lines 1-7, Specification) and has no special structure that would provide radial movement beyond what any standard elastomer ring inherently provides. Accordingly, any elastomer ring, including Carson’s solid elastomer ring 510, inherently permits radial movement due to the elastic properties of the material. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Applicant argues that Blakley’s support ring 16 “is shown as a stiff, rigid ring” and therefore cannot constitute the claimed elastic member (page 10, Remarks). However, the examiner points out that the claim does not require the disk pack to bolt directly into elastic material. Figure 5 of Applicant’s own disclosure shows the bolts 46 attach to the metal ring element 43 of the elastic member 40, not the elastic element 42 of the elastic member 40. Similarly, Carson shows the bolts attach to an unlabeled ring element on top of spring 510 in Figure 8. Carson is relied upon to teach the elastic element (spring 510) between the gyro housing assembly and the motor housing (the stationary frame). Blakley is relied upon to teach the alternating bolt pattern securing the disk pack to two different flanges. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Carson, Blakley, and Hilding is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 30 August 2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 16-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0086789, hereinafter Carson) in view of Blakley (U.S. Patent No. 6,517,246), and further in view of Hilding (U.S. Patent Application Pub No. 2018/0353973).
Regarding claim 1, Carson discloses a centrifugal separator (centrifuge assembly 100, Fig. 2) for processing a product by separating a relatively heavy component and a relatively light component from the product, the centrifugal separator comprising a stationary frame (motor housing 140, Fig. 2), a spindle (rotor shaft 115, Fig. 2) supported by the stationary frame and extending in parallel with a central axis (vertical axis 165, Fig. 2), a rotating member (drive spud 187, Fig. 2) mounted on the spindle; a drive unit (motor 150, Fig. 2) acting on the rotating member to rotate the spindle in relation to the stationary frame, a centrifuge rotor (“the rotor is positioned on top of drive spud 187”, par. [0045]) mounted to the spindle, and an upper bearing housing (gyro housing 110 and 520, Fig. 2 and 8) mounted to the stationary frame and supporting at least one bearing (bearings 63, Fig. 2), the at least one bearing comprising an outer bearing ring attached to the upper bearing housing and an inner bearing ring attached to the spindle (see Fig. 2), wherein the upper bearing housing is mounted to the stationary frame via an elastic member (elastomer ring 510, Fig. 8) permitting the upper bearing housing and thus the spindle to move radially during the rotation of the spindle, wherein the upper bearing housing is mounted to the stationary frame via the elastic member and an upper tilting member (diaphragm 530, Fig. 8) permitting the spindle to tilt in relation to the central axis during operation of the centrifugal separator (diaphragm permits drive shaft assembly to pivot, para. [0046]), and wherein the elastic member and the upper tilting member are arranged one after the other in a radial direction (diaphragm 530 is radially positioned closer to the central axis than elastomer ring 510, Fig. 8), and wherein the upper tilting member being attached to the upper bearing housing and to the elastic member (see Fig. 8), but does not disclose the centrifuge rotor enclosing a separation space, an inlet for the product to the separation space, a first outlet for the relatively light component from the separation space, a second outlet for the relatively heavy component from the separation space, and wherein the upper tilting member comprises a pack of annular discs extending around the upper bearing housing.
Blakley discloses analogous art related to improving flexible support for a bearing in rotational contact with a shaft, wherein the upper tilting member (disk pack 14, Fig. 1) comprises a pack of annular disks (col. 3 lines 3-6) extending around the upper bearing housing (outer surface of bearing assembly 12, Fig.1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of Carson with the pack of annular disks taught by Blakley for the purpose of providing a flexible support for a steady bearing, which allows bearing components to substantially track angular changes in the contact surfaces of a rotating shaft (col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 3, Blakley).
Hilding discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, with a rotor enclosing a separation space (6, Fig. 1a), a first outlet (light phase outlet 12, Fig. 1a) for the relatively light component from the separation space, a second outlet (heavy phase outlet 11, Fig. 1a) for the relatively heavy component from the separation space. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the centrifuge arrangement of Hilding to the centrifuge drive and bearing configuration of combined Carson and Blakley for the purpose of providing a centrifugal separator suitable for separating a product into light and heavy components (Abstract, Hilding).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses the centrifugal separator according to claim 1, wherein the upper tilting member (diaphragm 530, Fig. 8, Carson) is attached to the upper bearing housing (gyro housing 110, Fig. 2, Carson) and attached to the elastic member (elastomer ring 510, Fig. 8, Carson).
Blakley further discloses wherein the pack of annular disks (disk pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley) of the upper tilting member is attached to the upper bearing housing (outer surface of bearing assembly 12, Fig.1, Blakley) by at least three primary attachment members (fasteners 20, Fig. 3, Blakley) equidistantly separated from each other around the annular disks, and attached to the elastic member (analogous to support ring 16, Fig. 3, Blakley) by at least three secondary attachment members (fasteners 18, Fig. 3, Blakley) each being positioned between a respective pair of adjacent primary attachment members (Fig. 1, 3 and 4, Blakley). Since Blakley teaches a well-known alternating bolt pattern using three primary and three secondary attachment members that simultaneously connect the disk pack to two radial components, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the centrifugal separator of modified Carson with this bolt pattern to provide uniform stress distribution and balanced load transfer between the stationary frame, the pack of annular disks, and the elastic member, which allows the flexible disc pack to flex and the bearing housing to deflect in response to elastic deflection of the impeller shaft (col. 4 lines 36-40, Blakley).
Similarly, regarding claim 3, the teachings of Blakley can be applied to modified Carson in a similar way as discussed for claim 2. The combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses that the upper tilting member (diaphragm 530, Fig. 8, Carson) is attached to the stationary frame (motor housing 140, Fig. 2, Carson) and attached to the elastic member (elastomer ring 510, Fig. 8, Carson). Blakley further discloses wherein the pack of annular disks (disc pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley) of the upper tilting member is attached to the stationary frame (analogous to bearing assembly 12, Fig. 1, Blakley) by at least three primary attachment members (fasteners 20, Fig. 3, Blakley) equidistantly separated from each other around the annular disks, and attached to the elastic member (analogous to support ring 16, Fig. 3, Blakley) by at least three secondary attachment members (fasteners 18, Fig. 3, Blakley) each being positioned between a respective pair of adjacent primary attachment members (Fig. 1, 3, and 4, Blakley). Since Blakley teaches a well-known alternating bolt pattern using three primary and three secondary attachment members that simultaneously connect the disk pack to two radial components, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the centrifugal separator of modified Carson with this bolt pattern to provide uniform stress distribution and balanced load transfer between the stationary frame, the pack of annular disks, and the elastic member, which allows the flexible disc pack to flex and the bearing housing to deflect in response to elastic deflection of the impeller shaft (col. 4 lines 36-40, Blakley).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses wherein each of the primary and secondary attachment members (fasteners 18 and 20, Fig. 3, Blakley) comprises a screw bolt extending through a respective aperture (holes 54 and 58, Fig. 4, Blakley) through the pack of annular disks of the upper tilting member.
Regarding claims 5, 18, and 19, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses wherein the at least one bearing comprises a first bearing (upper bearing 163, Fig. 2, Carson) comprising an outer bearing ring attached to the upper bearing housing (gyro housing 110, Fig. 2, Carson) and an inner bearing ring attached to the spindle (rotor shaft 115, Fig. 2, Carson), and a second bearing (lower bearing 163, Fig. 2, Carson) comprising an outer bearing ring attached to the upper bearing housing (gyro housing 110, Fig. 2, Carson) and an inner bearing ring attached to the spindle (rotor shaft 115, Fig. 2, Carson).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses wherein the spindle (hollow spindle 3, Fig. 1a, Hilding) is hollow and surrounds the inlet (central duct 13, Fig. 1a Hilding) for the product.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding discloses wherein the pack of annular disks (analogous to diaphragm 530, Fig. 8, Carson) is axially distanced from the elastic member (elastomer ring 510, Fig. 8, Carson), and the elastic member is arranged radially outward of the upper bearing housing (gyro housing 520, Fig. 8, Carson).
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson in view of Blakley, and further in view of Hilding, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mackel et al. (U. S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0283561, hereinafter Mackel).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding does not disclose wherein the centrifugal separator comprises a lower bearing housing mounted to the stationary frame and supporting at least one lower bearing comprising a lower outer bearing ring attached to the lower bearing housing and a lower inner bearing ring attached to the spindle.
Mackel discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, wherein the centrifugal separator comprises a lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1) mounted to the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1) and supporting at least one lower bearing (foot bearing 7, Fig. 1) comprising a lower outer bearing ring (step 17, Fig. 1) attached to the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1) and lower inner bearing ring (step 16, Fig. 1) attached to the spindle (drive spindle 5, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of the combination of Carson, Blakley, and Hilding with the lower bearing as taught by Mackel for the purpose of the drive spindle together with the drum can follow the precessional movements of the centrifugal drum during operation (para. [0023], Mackel).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) is mounted to the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1, Mackel) via a lower tilting member (outer ring 19, Fig. 1, Mackel) permitting the spindle to tilt in relation to the central axis during operation of the centrifugal separator (para. [0023], Mackel).
Regarding claims 8-10, the teachings of Blakley can be applied to modified Carson in a similar way as discussed for claims 1, 2, and 4. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the lower tilting member (outer ring 19, Fig. 1, Mackel) comprises a pack of lower annular disks (disk pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley) extending around the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) and being attached to the lower bearing housing and to the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1, Mackel)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the pack of lower annular disks (disk pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley) of the lower tilting member (outer ring 19, Fig. 1, Mackel) is attached to the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) by at least three primary attachment members (fasteners 20, Fig. 3, Blakley) equidistantly separated from each other around the pack of lower annular disks, and to the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1, Mackel) by at least three secondary attachment members (fasteners 18, Fig. 3, Blakley) each being positioned between a respective pair of adjacent primary attachment members (Fig. 1, 3 and 4, Blakley).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein each of the primary and secondary attachment members (fasteners 18 and 20, Fig. 3, Blakley) attaching the lower tilting member comprises a screw bolt extending through a respective aperture (holes 54 and 58, Fig. 4, Blakley) through the pack of lower annular disks of the lower tilting member, and wherein the screw bolts (bolts 135, Fig. 2, Mackel) of the primary attachment members extend through the pack of lower annular disks (analogous to diaphragm 130, Fig. 2, Carson) in a first axial direction and the screw bolts (bolts 125, Fig. 2, Carson) of the secondary attachment members extend through the pack of annular disks (analogous to diaphragm 130, Fig. 2, Carson) in an opposite second axial direction.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the at least one lower bearing (foot bearing 7, Fig. 1, Mackel) of the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) comprises a first lower bearing (foot bearing 7, Fig. 1, Mackel) comprising a first lower outer bearing ring (step 17, Fig. 1, Mackel) attached to the lower bearing housing (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) and a first lower inner bearing ring (step 16, Fig. 1, Mackel) attached to the spindle (drive spindle 5, Fig. 1, Mackel). Although Mackel does not disclose a second lower bearing, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the lower bearing, for the purpose of providing load sharing in a dual-bearing arrangement, without producing any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the lower bearing housing comprises a lower convex spherical surface (inner ring 18, Fig. 1, Mackel) supported by a concave spherical surface (outer ring 19, Fig. 1, Mackel) provided on the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1, Mackel).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the rotating member (rotor 21, Fig. 1, Mackel) of the drive (electric motor 20, Fig. 1, Mackel) is mounted on the spindle (drive spindle 5, Fig. 1, Mackel) between the upper bearing housing (9, Fig. 1, Mackel) and the lower bearing housing (bearing housing 18, Fig. 1, Mackel).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the drive unit comprises an electric motor (20, Fig. 1, Mackel) having a stator (22, Fig. 1, Mackel) attached to the stationary frame (drive housing 4, Fig. 1, Mackel) and a motor rotor (rotor 21, Fig. 1, Mackel).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Carson, Blakley, Hilding, and Mackel discloses wherein the rotating member (rotor 21, Fig. 1, Mackel) comprises motor rotor (para. [0030], Mackel).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights