DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 20 April 2026.
Response to Amendment
Claims 6 and 7 have been amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-21 are pending. In the previous action (Non-Final Rejection filed on 20 January 2026), claims 5-6, 8-14, and 17-19 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that whether a nozzle would fall within the scope of the claims depends on whether the inner diameter and length selected for the nozzle would “accelerate the flow of the compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof.” If the inner diameter and length selected for the nozzle would not so accelerate, then that nozzle would not fall within the scope of the claims (Remarks, p. 7/15, bottom).
In response, a “nozzle” for the purposes of the application is interpreted to be a constricted conduit relative to conduits immediately upstream and downstream of the constricted conduit. See detail in Fig. 1 and [0027]-[0028]). Applicant is respectfully advised to consider the equation defining volumetric flow rate, as can be found in the Wikipedia entry for “volumetric flow rate.”
PNG
media_image1.png
162
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the equation shows, assuming a constant flow rate Q, where a cross-section A of a conduit decreases, velocity v must increase, i.e., the fluid must have an increase velocity (i.e., it must accelerate) to maintain mass balance through the constriction. Therefore, all nozzles, as the term is interpreted for the application, are capable of accelerating gas, and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the nozzles of the prior art do not fall within the scope of the claims because neither reference suggests that their nozzles would accelerate the flow of any of the gases used in the references to or below a dew point. The lack of such disclosure clearly demonstrates that the prior art does not satisfy these limitations (Remarks, p. 8/15, “Thus”).
In response, the lack of discussion in these references is not considered to be evidence of the lack of such capability of the prior art nozzles. Where the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Because the nozzles of the prior art are constrictions that are capable of accelerating a fluid, there is a sound basis for believing that the products of Applicant and the prior art are the same, and Applicant assumes the burden of showing that they are not. See MPEP 2112.01(I). It was known that adiabatic expansion can cool air below its dew point, as evidenced by Bright (US 2013/0206912 A1) at [0038]). But when a gas cools adiabatically, the dew point is achieved only for a particular pressure drop, temperature, and moisture content, as evidenced by Totten (2006. Steel Heat Treatment - Equipment and Process Design - 1.7.5 Adiabatic Expansion. Taylor & Francis. p. 119.)
PNG
media_image2.png
170
1172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The nozzles of both references are capable of adiabatic expansion and therefore cooling to a dew point through acceleration, assuming a suitable pressure drop, temperature, and moisture content, so both references are interpreted as inherently capable of the claimed acceleration, and this conclusion is not dependent upon whether prior art inventors stated or even understood these principles.
Applicant cites allowed cases which discuss capillaries capable of wicking, and analogizes limitations from the claims of these cases to the limitations of the instant claim, arguing that if a tube, or nozzle, has dimensions that cause it to wick, or accelerate to a dew point, then it is a capillary tube, or a dew point nozzle, and falls within the scope of the respective claims. For a capillary tube, a skilled person would be able to select, for a given solution, a tube that falls outside the scope of these claims if so desired. See Remarks, p. 8-9/15.
In response, the examiner declines to comment on the definiteness of the claims of the prior art in favor of considering only the unique issues of the current application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant does not cite evidence in the prior art that suggests that a skilled practitioner would know what inner diameters and lengths fall inside or outside of the metes and bounds of the claim. It is noted that a “capillary tube” is a common term in the art, but “dew point nozzle” is not. The term is not used by Applicant in the disclosure or the claims. Therefore, Applicant’s argument based upon an analogy between these terms is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the standard for indefiniteness is whether the claim language meets the threshold notice requirement to permit a person skilled in the art to understand the claim boundaries, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available (Remarks, p. 9/15, “While”). The claim satisfies the above notice threshold because it defines the nozzle structural requirements in terms of the results achieved, which is an accepted way of claiming. The skilled person would understand that to fall within the scope of the claims, the nozzle dimensions must be selected to achieve the recited acceleration of compressed gas to or below its dew point. Specific values are not a prerequisite. Conversely, to fall outside the scope of the claims, the skilled person need only take care to select nozzle dimensions that, for a given compressed gas, do not cause the gas to accelerate to or below its dew point. See Remarks, p. 9-10/15).
In response, a person skilled in the art would not be able to understand the claim boundaries because the standard for the inner diameter and length is contingent on the environment of the device (i.e., the gas pressure, the pressure drop through the nozzle, the incoming gas temperature and humidity), as taught by Tauten and discussed above. The claim encompasses the multiple variables associated with dew pint and adds to these the variables of nozzle inner diameter and length. Therefore, the conditions of the claim depend on multiple interacting variables which relate to both the environment of the device and the proportions of the device itself, and the metes and bounds of the claim would not be apparent to the skilled practitioner.
It is noted that Applicant’s argument repeatedly acknowledges that the dew point is contingent on the gas pressure (p. 7, “For a compressed”; p. 8, middle; p. 9, middle, p. 9, “Like”). It is therefore implicit that a device that falls outside the scope of the claim when in use at one pressure may nevertheless be within the scope of the claim when in use at another pressure, without any change to the device itself. Applicant does not state how a skilled practitioner would know what “predefined pressure” is required for the claim. It is further noted that a device may be fed a gas that is already at or below its dew point, and by the accelerating arrive at or remain below its dew point, and therefore be within the scope of the claim, for any diameter or length of a nozzle, provided the nozzle can accelerate the gas. Thus, it is unclear how such limitations further limit the claimed device. Applicant is respectfully advised that an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (MPEP 2114(II), and 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 (2114(II)). It is not possible for another inventor to take care to select nozzle dimensions that, for a given compressed gas, do not cause the gas to accelerate to or below its dew point because any nozzle as the term is used in the disclosure is capable of accelerating a gas to its dew point, and any such nozzle may be fed gas already at its dew point. On the other hand, limitations reciting specific values for the dimensions of the nozzles would be clear because they would be readily understood by the skilled practitioner and not subject to operating conditions.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant has amended the claim to recite “that the inlet nozzles are configured to accelerate the flow of compressed gas in the recited manner.” See Remarks, p. 10/15, top.
In response, Applicant provides no arguments, and so no response to arguments regarding claim 6 is presented. The amended claim is addressed below.
It is noted that Applicant does not argue against the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b), and so the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 15-16, and 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Holm (US 6,290,738 B1) and Herman (US 2016/0032798 A1) employ fundamentally different physical principles from those recited in claims 1 and 15, namely inertial impaction rather than accelerating a gas to or below its dew point, and if a proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art system being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims obvious. There is no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that would lead a person skilled in the art to understand that the Herman nozzle is capable of accelerating any of the gases in Herman to or below a dew point. (Remarks, p. 13/15, middle). The Office has not provided a convincing line of reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the inertial impaction systems of Holm and Herman to achieve dew point precipitation (Remarks, p. 13/15, bottom).
In response, Applicant’s argument implicitly requires that fluid acceleration and inertial impaction are mutually exclusive principles, but both Holm (col. 2, lines 27-30) and Herman ([0034]) explicitly accelerate fluid. The rejection did not suggest a modification that would change their principles of operation. While both teachings also include impaction surfaces, which Applicant does not claim, this does not place them outside the potential scope of the instant claims, which use the transitional term “comprising.” The evidence that the nozzles are capable of accelerating a gas to or below its dew point is the observation that they are nozzles, which renders them capable of accelerating a fluid, as both prior arts explicitly state, and as the skilled practitioner would have recognized based upon the flow rate equation discussed above. Therefore, no modification to provide a device for fluid acceleration is necessary. Further limitations regarding a dew point relate to the conditions in which a device is used rather than its inherent properties. It is noted that Applicant does not argue that the inner diameters or lengths of the prior art nozzles fall outside the scope of the claimed invention, but merely states that the diameter-to-length ratio of Herman was selected for a different purpose, an argument lacking in any evidentiary basis for why the prior art length and diameter do not satisfy the claim. It is Applicant’s burden to rebut the rejection with evidence showing that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1: The claim recites, “the compressed gas having a predefined pressure . . . each inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas.” These limitations are unclear because it is unclear if Applicant intends by this text to define ranges of inner diameters and lengths which fall within the scope of the claim, and if so, it would be unclear to the skilled practitioner what precise values of these dimensions fall within the scope of the claim. It is noted that, as dew point is the temperature and pressure at which a gas mixture begins condensing to form a liquid phase, it is unclear how “to accelerate . . . to or below a dew point” can be interpreted as defining the intended inner diameter and length values since dew point is dependent upon operating conditions. See (Cleveland et al. (2009). Dictionary of Energy (Expanded Edition). (pp. 134). Elsevier.).
PNG
media_image3.png
193
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because the functional limitations apparently defining the nozzle dimensions include operational parameters that can vary, the metes and bounds of the claimed nozzle dimensions are unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
Claims 2-7 and 21 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected upon the same basis as claim 1.
Claims 16-20 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim 6: The claim recites, “wherein the plurality of inlet nozzles are configured to accelerate the flow of compressed gas to a supersonic speed in an adiabatic and isentropic manner.” It is unclear what configuration these limitations imply, i.e., it is unclear how nozzles configured to accelerate the flow of compressed gas to a supersonic speed in an adiabatic and isentropic manner are different than those that are not so configured. The specification teaches that the Mach number of the gas is proportional to its temperature, and ambient environmental conditions may alter the temperatures experienced at the exit of the inlet nozzles ([0041]), but these teachings relate to operating conditions rather than any particular nozzle configuration, so the skilled practitioner would not be able to readily ascertain how the claimed nozzles are further limited by this text.
Claim 8: It is unclear if “separating the liquid from the compressed gas” (line 12) refers to “the liquid” in line 11 since “where the liquid precipitates from the gas” is recited in the context of a claimed intention for the selection (“that are selected so as to”) of the inner diameter and the length, which presumably occurs before the “receiving” step, without explicitly reciting a step of precipitating liquid from gas during the “accelerating” step. Therefore, it is unclear if “the liquid” in line 12 refers to “a liquid” (line 6) or “the liquid” (line 11). Further regarding claim 8, it is unclear if “each inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas therethrough to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas” is intended to recite a positive step of the method in which an inner diameter and a length are selected, or if this text is meant to recite a configuration of the nozzles used in carrying out the method, i.e., it is unclear if “that are selected” is intended to recite a method step of selecting or if lines 9-11 are functional language intended to implicitly describe the structure of each inlet nozzle used in the method, in which case the metes and bounds of the inner diameter and the length are unclear. For the purposes of examination only, the claim is interpreted as requiring a method step of precipitating liquid from the gas during the accelerating step.
Claims 9-14 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holm (US 6,290,738 B1) in view of Herman et al. (US 2016/0032798 A1), and as evidenced by Zuerker et al. (US 2017/0014745 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holm discloses a gas-liquid separator 10 (Fig. 1; col. 2, line 8) for a gas-liquid stream 12 from a crankcase (col. 2, lines 24-25), which is known in the art to be compressed air from a compressor, as evidenced by Zuerker ([0001]) (i.e., a compressed gas and liquid separator) comprising:
a vertical housing 20 having an end at an inlet 22 (col. 2, line 24) and an end at an outlet (col. 2, line 26) (i.e., a shell adapted to be vertically oriented in use, the shell having an inlet end and an outlet end and defining a separating chamber therein);
a nozzle structure 28 with a plurality of nozzles or holes 30 in a plate coupled to the inlet end for accelerating the gas-liquid stream (Figs. 1, 6; col. 2, lines 27-30) (i.e., an inlet plate coupled to the inlet end of the shell, the inlet plate providing a compressed gas ingress for receiving a flow of compressed gas into the separating chamber; a plurality of inlet nozzles disposed in the inlet plate);
an inertial collector 32 that causes the stream to experience a sharp directional change (col. 2, lines 30-32) and a pass-through filter 48 (col. 3, line 4), each to separate liquid particles (col. 2, line 45; col. 3, line 5) (i.e., one or more separating baffles positioned within the separating chamber above the compressed gas ingress, the one or more separating baffles providing a means for separating the liquid from the compressed gas); and
the outlet 24 in a top plate of the shell 20 (Fig. 1) (i.e., an outlet plate coupled to the outlet end of the shell, the outlet plate providing a compressed gas egress out of the separating chamber).
However, Holm does not explicitly recite (i) the compressed gas having a predefined pressure and including a liquid in vapor form therein; (ii) each inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas (iii) to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas.
Regarding (i), since recitation of the compressed gas and its included vapor at a predefined pressure does not appear to imply a limitation of the physical structure of the claimed separator, this text is not given weight that limits the claim. The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. It is further noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II). See also MPEP 2112.01(I) (“when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”).
Regarding (ii), Herman discloses an air-oil separator (Figs. 1, 2; Title) comprising impactor nozzles 104 that accelerate a compressed gas toward an impaction surface 106 ([0034]; [0038]: “pressurized”: [0062]: “compressor”). Herman teaches that the impactor nozzles have a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 3.3 mm ([0038]) (i.e., an inner diameter and a length) to create a strong vacuum to accelerate the gases ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Holm by providing each inlet nozzle with an inner diameter and a length that are selected so as to accelerate the flow of compressed gas as taught by Herman because (1) Holm teaches nozzles that accelerate a fluid stream (Holm, col. 2, lines 26-30) but does not specify the nozzle dimensions; and (2) it was known that nozzles having a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 3.3 mm are effective to accelerate a compressed gas (Herman, [0034], [0038]). Regarding “that are selected based on the predefined pressure,” this language is interpreted to be functional language, as this text does not appear to imply any limitation on the structure of the separator, i.e., the claim of a prior selection and the motivation for the selection do not appear to suggest any particular dimension. It is noted that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 (IV).
Regarding (iii), since dew point is dependent upon operating conditions and is not controllable by the claimed separator when it is not operating, these limitations are interpreted as relating to a manner of operating the separator, and the separator of Holm in view of Herman is interpreted as being capable of accelerating a compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof such that the liquid precipitates from the gas, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01(I) (“when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”). See also See MPEP 2114 (IV) (“Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function.”).
Regarding claim 2, Holm teaches a drain 50 for separating separated fluid (col. 3, lines 7-9) (i.e., further comprising a side drain disposed in the inlet plate proximate to the shell, the side drain facilitating removal of the separated liquid from the separating chamber).
Regarding claim 3, Holm teaches nozzles 104 arranged symmetrically on a plate (Fig. 6; col. 4, line63), and Herman teaches a symmetrical arrangement of nozzles on a plate (Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein the plurality of inlet nozzles are arranged in a symmetrical pattern on the inlet plate).
Regarding claim 4, both Holm (Figs. 1, 6) and Herman (Fig. 2) teach nozzles disposed in a plate at an inlet or ingress (i.e., wherein the plurality of inlet nozzles are formed in a multi-nozzle plate that is disposed in the inlet plate).
Regarding claim 7, Holm teaches a plurality of nozzles (col. 2, line 28), with two depicted (Fig. 1) (i.e., wherein the plurality of inlet nozzles includes two or more inlet nozzles).
Claims 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holm in view of Herman, and as evidenced by Zuerker.
Regarding claim 15, Holm discloses a nozzle structure 28 a plurality of nozzles or holes 30 in a plate at an inlet 22 of a gas-liquid separator 10 (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 8, 24-30) for a gas-liquid stream 12 from a crankcase (col. 2, lines 24-25), which is known in the art to be compressed air from a compressor, as evidenced by Zuerker ([0001]) (i.e., a plate configured to provide an inlet for a compressed gas and liquid separator, the plate comprising a first inlet nozzle disposed in the plate for receiving a flow of compressed gas, and at least one additional inlet nozzle disposed in the plate for receiving the compressed gas).
However, Holm does not explicitly disclose (i) the compressed gas having a predefined pressure and including a liquid in vapor form therein; (ii) the first inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected so as to accelerate the flow of compressed gas (iii) to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas; or (iv) each of the at least one additional inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas to or below the dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas.
Regarding (i), since recitation of the compressed gas and its included vapor at a predefined pressure does not appear to imply a limitation of the physical structure of the claimed plate, this text is not given weight that limits the claim. The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. It is further noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II). See also MPEP 2112.01(I) (“when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”).
Regarding (ii), Herman discloses an air-oil separator (Figs. 1, 2; Title) comprising impactor nozzles 104 that accelerate a compressed gas toward an impaction surface 106 ([0034]; [0038]: “pressurized”: [0062]: “compressor”). Herman teaches that the impactor nozzles have a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 3.3 mm ([0038]) (i.e., an inner diameter and a length) to create a strong vacuum to accelerate the gases ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle structure of Holm by providing (ii) a first inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected so as to accelerate the flow of compressed gas as taught by Herman because (1) Holm teaches nozzles that accelerate a fluid stream (Holm, col. 2, lines 26-30) but does not specify the nozzle dimensions; and (2) it was known that nozzles having a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 3.3 mm are effective to accelerate a compressed gas (Herman, [0034], [0038]).
Regarding (iii), since dew point is dependent upon operating conditions and is not controllable by the claimed separator when it is not operating, these limitations are interpreted as relating to a manner of operating the separator, and the separator of Holm in view of Herman is interpreted as being capable of accelerating a compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof such that the liquid precipitates from the gas, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01(I) (“when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”). See also See MPEP 2114 (IV) (“Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function.”).
Regarding (iv), since Holm teaches plural nozzles (col. 2, line 28), it would have been obvious for the skilled practitioner of Holm in view of Herman to provide a nozzle configured the same as another nozzle. Regarding “that are selected based on the predefined pressure,” this language is interpreted to be functional language, as this text does not appear to imply any limitation on the structure of the plate, i.e., the claim of a prior selection and the motivation for the selection do not appear to suggest any particular dimension. It is noted that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 (IV).
Regarding claim 16, Holm teaches nozzles 104 arranged symmetrically on a plate (Fig. 6; col. 4, line63), and Herman teaches a symmetrical arrangement of nozzles on a plate (Fig. 2) (i.e., wherein the first inlet nozzle and the at least one additional inlet nozzle are arranged in a symmetrical pattern on the plate).
Regarding claim 20, Holm teaches a plurality of nozzles (col. 2, line 28), with two depicted (Fig. 1) (i.e., wherein the at least one additional inlet nozzle comprises two or more inlet nozzles).
Regarding claim 21, Herman teaches a nozzle diameter of 3 mm and a height of 7 mm ([0038]), or a diameter-to-length ratio of about 0.43, so it would have been obvious for the practitioner of Holm in view of Herman to provide a nozzle with an inner diameter-to-length ratio in the range of 0.25 to 0.75 (i.e., wherein each inlet nozzle of the plurality of inlet nozzles has an inner diameter-to-length ratio that ranges from 0.25 to 0.75). It is noted that an individual nozzle must have a single inner diameter-to-length ratio, and it is noted that the selection of the ratio is dependent upon the gas and the pressure ([0028]), so “wherein each inlet nozzle . . . has an inner diameter-to-length ratio that ranges” is interpreted as stating that there is a single ratio applied to every nozzle that falls within the claimed range.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 5-6, 8-14, and 17-19.
The concept of a compressed gas and liquid separator, comprising:
a shell adapted to be vertically or horizontally oriented in use, the shell having an inlet end and an outlet end and defining a separating chamber therein; an inlet plate coupled to the inlet end of the shell, the inlet plate providing a compressed gas ingress for receiving a flow of compressed gas into the separating chamber, the compressed gas having a predefined pressure and including a liquid in vapor form therein; a plurality of inlet nozzles disposed in the inlet plate, each inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas; one or more separating baffles positioned within the separating chamber above the compressed gas ingress, the one or more separating baffles providing a means for separating the liquid from the compressed gas; and an outlet plate coupled to the outlet end of the shell, the outlet plate providing a compressed gas egress out of the separating chamber (claim 1);
further comprising a divider cone coupled to the compressed gas ingress, the divider cone having a size and shape selected to decelerate the flow of compressed gas and direct the decelerated flow of compressed gas into the separating baffles (claim 5); or
wherein the plurality of inlet nozzles accelerate the flow of compressed gas to a supersonic speed in an adiabatic and isentropic manner (claim 6).
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
In addition, the concept of a method of separating gas and liquid, comprising:
providing a shell adapted to be vertically or horizontally oriented in use, the shell having an inlet end and an outlet end and defining a separating chamber therein, and a compressed gas egress out of the separating chamber at the outlet end of the shell; receiving a flow of compressed gas immediately into the separating chamber through a compressed gas ingress at the inlet end of the shell, the compressed gas having a predefined pressure and including a liquid in vapor form therein; accelerating the flow of compressed gas through a plurality of inlet nozzles disposed at the compressed gas ingress, each inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas therethrough to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas; and separating the liquid from the compressed gas at one or more separating baffles positioned within the separating chamber above the compressed gas ingress (claim 8)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
Lastly, the concept of a plate configured to provide an inlet for a compressed gas and liquid separator, the plate comprising: a first inlet nozzle disposed in the plate for receiving a flow of compressed gas, the compressed gas having a predefined pressure and including a liquid in vapor form therein, the first inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected so as to accelerate the flow of compressed gas to or below a dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas; and at least one additional inlet nozzle disposed in the plate for receiving the compressed gas, each of the at least one additional inlet nozzle having an inner diameter and a length that are selected based on the predefined pressure so as to accelerate the flow of the compressed gas to or below the dew point thereof where the liquid precipitates from the gas (claim 15);
wherein the plate is a first plate, further comprising a second plate disposed in the first plate, wherein the first inlet nozzle and the at least one additional inlet nozzle are formed in the second plate (claim 17); or
further comprising a side drain disposed in the plate proximate to an outer edge thereof, the side drain facilitating removal of liquid that has been separated from the compressed gas out through a side of the plate (claim 19)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Holm (US 6,290,738 B1), which discloses a gas-liquid separator 10 (Fig. 1; col. 2, line 8) for a gas-liquid stream 12 from a crankcase (col. 2, lines 24-25) comprising:
a vertical housing 20 having an end at an inlet 22 (col. 2, line 24) and an end at an outlet (col. 2, line 26);
a nozzle structure 28 with a plurality of nozzles or holes 30 in a plate coupled to the inlet end for accelerating the gas-liquid stream (Figs. 1, 6; col. 2, lines 27-30);
an inertial collector 32 that causes the stream to experience a sharp directional change (col. 2, lines 30-32) and a pass-through filter 48 (col. 3, line 4), each to separate liquid particles (col. 2, line 45; col. 3, line 5); and
the outlet 24 in a top plate of the shell 20 (Fig. 1).
However, Holm does not suggest a divider cone coupled to a compressed gas ingress having a size and shape selected to accelerate a flow of gas (claims 5); a method in which a gas including liquid is compressed and accelerated such that the liquid precipitates (claim 8); a second plate disposed in a first plate, wherein the first inlet nozzle and the at least one additional inlet nozzle are formed in the second plate (claim 17); or a side drain disposed in a nozzle plate proximate to an outer edge thereof, the side drain facilitating removal of liquid that has been separated from the compressed gas out through a side of the plate (claim 19).
Regarding 6, Shaikh et al. (US 2018/0369711 A1) teaches a nozzle for accelerating a gas mixture at supersonic speeds through a converging-diverging nozzle results in an expansion that initiates the formation of small droplets of condensate ([0009]). However, it would not have been obvious to modify the embodiment taught by Holm to operate in this manner since Holm operates under the principle of inertial impaction (col. 1, line 24) rather than supersonic expansion.
Claims 5-6 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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 at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights