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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-13, and species A4 (CO2 in liquid phase) and B1 (Formed by a single circular sector) in the reply filed on 7/1/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims now comprise a special technical feature which is not taught in US Patent No 6537452. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature is taught by Poype as outline below in the prior art rejection.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/2025.
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/2025.
Newly submitted claims 17-20 directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the technical feature that overlaps with groups I and II, originally restricted, is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of U.S. Patent No. 6537452.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain random markings which are not relevant such as
PNG
media_image1.png
44
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 3, 26A, 26B, 19A, 19B, 18A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-2 and 5-13 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 a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the limitation “inserted into said space or spaces” renders the claim indefinite. The claim requires in both instances only one space in the case of both a single circular sector or several circular sectors; therefore it is not clear what “spaces” refers to. All dependent claims are rejected as well.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this refers to “branching channels” defined in claim 1 or different channels.
In regard to claim 2, the limitations “at a midpoint of its thickness” and “between its two ends” are indefinite. It is unclear what this refers to. Does this refer to the linking connector, disc, or another piece?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a linking connector" and “at least one inlet and at least one outlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. These terms has previously been defined.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "typically three in number" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 7-8 recite the limitation "said branches". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this refers to “branching channels” or different branches.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitation "said ducts". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has not previously been defined.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitation “an outlet of said rotor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has previously been defined.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said temperature control or thermostatting fluid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has not previously been defined.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “linking connector also includes an inlet and an outlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms have previously been defined; it is not clear if they refer to the same or different inlets and outlets.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “said at least one temperature control or thermostatting fluid duct”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term has not previously been defined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said linking connector comprises at least one inlet and at least one outlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms have previously been defined; it is not clear if they refer to the same or different inlets and outlets.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “said inlet of a contiguous circular sector”, “said outlet of a last circular sector”, “said inlet…said outlet of said linking connector” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms have not previously been defined.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6537452 by Poype et al. (Poype).
It is noted that claims 1-2 and 5-13 are directed to a “rotor”, which does not clearly set forth the statutory category to which the invention belongs to. It has been determined that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the appropriate principles for interpreting claims for that particular category of invention have been applied.
Regarding limitations recited in the claims which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed universal rotor, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). This applies to the following limitations: “being configured for operations requiring fluid to be subjected to a centrifugal accelerations involving the circulation of single-phase or multiphase fluids and for treatments of purifications, extractions, separations, CPC, liquid-liquid extractions, chemical and/or biochemical reactions” (claim 1); “for a liquid phase entering through inlets into said linking connector to be guided to travel through a network of cells up to outlets of said linking connector” (claim 1); “configured to respectively allow entry of a liquid mixture into said network of cells and the exit of said mixture from said network of cells” (claim 2); “circulating a temperature control or thermostatting fluid in said ducts in an identical manner for each one of said networks of cells” (claim 6); so that said temperature control or thermostatting fluid entering through an inlet passes through all of said ducts connected in series of each one of said circular sectors constituting said ring and then, guided by said linking connector, passes to another linking connector of a next adjacent disc of said stack and so forth up to an outlet of said rotor” (claim 7); “so that said temperature control or thermostatting fluid entering through an inlet passes through all of said ducts connected in series of each one of a number of circular sectors constituting said ring and then, guided by said linking connector, passes to another linking connector of a next adjacent disc of the stack and so forth up to an outlet of said rotor” (claim 8); “allowing entry and exit of a temperature control or thermostatting fluid in order for it to pass through said at least one temperature control or thermostatting fluid duct” (claim 9); “for respectively allowing entry of a liquid mixture into said network of cells and an exit of said mixture from the networks of cells; such that between said outlet and said inlet, said liquid phase passes through all the cells and channels of a respective disc” (claim 11); “making it possible to select positions such that in the “ON” position of said valve said liquid phase entering at said inlet is directed to an outlet of said valve to then enter said inlet of a contiguous circular sector in order to traverse said entire network of cells of said disc and arrive at said outlet of a last circular sector and then to said inlet and then to said outlet of said linking connector to enter a next contiguous of said disc at said inlet of said linking connector thereof but if a ball of said “BYPASS” position said liquid phase entering at said inlet is directed directly to said outlet without traversing said cells of said disc concerned the latter being short circuited allowing a user to adjust a number of said cells to each of its various applications in steps by said number of said cells contained in said disc” (claim 12); “thereby increasing the productivity of said rotor in CPC mode in an ascending mode” (claim 13).
In regard to claim 1, Poype teaches a universal rotor (abstract; C2/L54 to C3/L23, rotor 1); capable of operations requiring fluid to be subjected to a centrifugal accelerations involving the circulation of single-phase or multiphase fluids and for treatments of purifications, extractions, separations, CPC, liquid-liquid extractions, chemical and/or biochemical reactions.
Poype teaches one or more discs stacked one on top of the other (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, plate 8).
Poype teaches each of said discs comprising a retainer in which a ring, including an assembly of one or more circular sectors is inserted (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, flat rings).
Poype teaches in a case of a single circular sector, a space being provided between two ends of the single circular sector or in the case of several circular sectors, said space being arranged between ends of two contiguous circular sectors (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, flat rings).
Poype teaches a linking connector inserted into said space or spaces (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings).
Poype teaches said linking connector including branching channels (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); capable of allowing a liquid phase entering through inlets into said linking connector to be guided to travel through a network of cells up to outlets of said linking connector. Poype does not teaches said outlets being in direct contact with inlets of a linking connector of a next disc and so on up to an outlet of a last disc which is connected to an outlet of said rotor. Making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
In regard to claim 2, Poype teaches formed by a single circular sector comprising a network of successive cells and interconnected by said channels arranged in a place approximately at a midpoint of its thickness wherein there is at least one gap between its two ends for arranging in a sealed manner a linking connector (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6). Poype teaches said linking connector comprising at least one inlet and at least one outlet (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); configured to respectively allow entry of a liquid mixture into said network of cells and the exit of said mixture from said network of cells.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 5, which are directed to method of making said rotor (e.g. “are made in one piece, by additive construction”) it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the rotor as recited in claim 5 is the same as the rotor disclosed by Poype, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In regard to claim 6, Poype teaches a single circular sector comprises, in its thickness, one or more ducts having a generally rectangular cross-section each arranged in a circular pattern, typically three in number (abstract; C2/L12 to C4/L26; Figure 3-4), deliminted by concentric walls and arranged such that an average radius of each respective circular pattern of ducts substantially corresponds to a same mean radius as that of a corresponding circular pattern of a network of cells (abstract; C2/L12 to C4/L6); capable of circulating a temperature control or thermostatting fluid in said ducts in an identical manner for each one of said networks of cells.
In regard to claim 7, Poype teaches said linking connector comprises said branches (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); so that said temperature control or thermostatting fluid entering through an inlet passes through all of said ducts connected in series of each one of said circular sectors constituting said ring and then, guided by said linking connector, passes to another linking connector of a next adjacent disc of said stack and so forth up to an outlet of said rotor.
In regard to claim 8, Poype teaches said linking connector comprises said branches (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); so that said temperature control or thermostatting fluid entering through an inlet passes through all of said ducts connected in series of each one of a number of circular sectors constituting said ring and then, guided by said linking connector, passes to another linking connector of a next adjacent disc of the stack and so forth up to an outlet of said rotor.
In regard to claim 9, Poype teaches said linking connector also includes an inlet and an outlet (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); capable of allowing entry and exit of a temperature control or thermostatting fluid in order for it to pass through said at least one temperature control or thermostatting fluid duct.
In regard to claim 11, Poype teaches said linking connector comprises at least one inlet and at least one outlet (abstract; C2/L54 to C4/L6, annular joint 3b, 3b’ in order to effect seal between rings); capable of respectively allowing entry of a liquid mixture into said network of cells and an exit of said mixture from the networks of cells; such that between said outlet and said inlet, said liquid phase passes through all the cells and channels of a respective disc.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6537452 by Poype et al. (Poype), as noted above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0381519 by Aoki et al. (Aoki).
In regard to claim 12, Poype teaches the limitations as noted above. Poype does not teach said linking connector is a non-static connector, in this case a single or multi-way valve comprising “ON” and “BYPASS” positions is added thereto.
Aoki teaches a rotor for separations (abstract). Aoki teaches discs stacked on top of one another ([0041]-[0043]; [0056]). Aoki teaches circular sectors ([0041]-[0043]; [0056]). Aoki teaches a non-static connector, a valve with on and bypass conditions ([0041]-[0043]; [0056]); making it possible to select positions such that in the “ON” position of said valve said liquid phase entering at said inlet is directed to an outlet of said valve to then enter said inlet of a contiguous circular sector in order to traverse said entire network of cells of said disc and arrive at said outlet of a last circular sector and then to said inlet and then to said outlet of said linking connector to enter a next contiguous of said disc at said inlet of said linking connector thereof but if a ball of said “BYPASS” position said liquid phase entering at said inlet is directed directly to said outlet without traversing said cells of said disc concerned the latter being short circuited allowing a user to adjust a number of said cells to each of its various applications in steps by said number of said cells contained in said disc. Aoki teaches the rotary valve controls the fluid flow through the system ([0041]-[0043]; [0056]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a valve, as taught by Aoki, in the rotor of Poype in order to effectively control the fluid flow through the system.
In regard to claim 13, Poype teaches the limitations as noted above. Poype does not teach wherein “n” first cells of said rotor have decreasing volumes according to a determinable function ranging from V7 to V with V7>V, V being a constant volume of most of said cells of said rotor.
Aoki teaches volume can be tuned between cells ([0034]). Aoki teaches volume processed in cells relates to separation purity ([0239]-[0246]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to tune the volume in order to acheive desired separation purity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6537452 by Poype et al. (Poype), as noted above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160184735 by Wardle (Wardle).
In regard to claim 10, Poype teaches the limitations as noted above. Poype does not teach said cells have walls provided with fins.
Wardle teaches a rotor (abstract). Wardle teaches fins to increase surface area of the tube in heat or mass transfer applications ([0089]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate fins, as taught by Wardle, in the rotor of Poype in order to achieve desired separation parameters, increase mass or heat transfer and separation efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777