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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 16th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each 103 rejection previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed September 30th, 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants prior arguments directed to previously applied references have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the newly applied references and rejection set forth within. To the extent that applicant contends that the claimed geometric configurations, mathematical expressions, or dimensional relationships distinguish over the prior art, such features are considered to represent routine optimization of known result-effective variables in hydrocyclone design, as the art recognizes that separation performance is dependent on geometry, curvature, and dimensional scaling (see, e.g., Ghodrat, Arterburn). Expressing such known relationships in mathematical form does not render the underlying structure non-obvious.
Further, the cited references are all directed to fluid separation systems and improving separation efficiency, and therefore are properly combinable. The modifications proposed in the rejection represent the application of known techniques to improve a known device, yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boadway (US2849930) in view of Butler (CN87107366A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), Miller (US4652363), Ghodrat "Numerical analysis of hydrocyclones with different conical section designs", and further in view of Schubert (US5667686), Arterburn: "The Sizing & Selection of Hydrocyclones", and further in view of Sams (US5575896A).
Regarding claim 1, Boadway discloses a swirl-type demulsification (Boadway col. 1 lines 19-20 separating solid particles from liquid suspensions" and col. 10 lines 71-72 maintaining the fibre in a dispersed condition) and dehydration device (Boadway col. 1 line 42 "reduction of the drying time") for an oil-water emulsion (Boadway col. 2 lines 67-68 "undesired particles from oil or water), comprising: a swirler (Boadway "inner vortex" #13 col. 4 line 12); wherein the swirler comprises a swirl chamber (Boadway col. 3 line 41 "vortex chamber") and an underflow pipe (Boadway "pipe" #38 Figs. 2, 8, 10); the swirl chamber is cylindrical (Boadway col. 8 lines 65-68), and the underflow pipe is coaxial with the swirl chamber (Boadway Fig. 2); the swirl chamber comprises a closed end and an open end (Boadway Fig 8 and Fig. 2); the closed end of the swirl chamber is connected with an inlet pipe (Boadway "pipe" #32 Fig. 8 is intake and is fluidically and by the outer cylindrical wall of the chamber, physically connected to the closed end) and an overflow pipe (Boadway pipe #35 col. 6 lines 45-60 describe how at least excess vapor are discharged through pipe 35, down through the pipe to mix with water and be discharged at #44 Fig. 2); the overflow pipe is coaxial with the swirl chamber (Boadway Fig. 11); the inlet pipe is tangent to a circumferential inner wall of the swirl chamber, and communicates with the swirl chamber (Boadway Fig. 8); the overflow pipe passes through the closed end of the swirl chamber and communicates with the swirl chamber (Boadway Fig. 8 and 10-11); a wall of the swirl chamber and the overflow pipe are made of an electrically conductive material (Boadway col. 7 line 44; col. 5, line 54; col. 11, line 63 describing cast and sheet metal construction); the open end of the swirl chamber faces towards the underflow pipe, and communicates with the underflow pipe through a composite curved pipe section (Boadway Fig. 2); and the composite curved pipe section is coaxial with the swirl chamber (Boadway Fig. 2 and Fig. 10 shows the sections which are coaxial with the swirl chamber); on an axial section of the swirl, an inner wall of the composite curved pipe section comprises a concave arc transition section, a straight cone transition section and a convex elliptical arc transition section connected sequentially (Boadway Fig. 10 and described in col. 11 lines 54-68); and a first end of the concave arc transition section is connected to the open end of the swirl chamber; an inner diameter of the first end of the concave arc transition section is equal to an inner diameter of the swirl chamber; a first end of the straight cone transition section is tangent to a second end of the concave arc transition section; a second end of the straight cone transition section is tangent to a first end of the convex elliptical arc transition section; a second end of the convex arc transition section is connected to the underflow pipe; the first end of the concave arc transition section is larger than the second end of the concave arc transition section in diameter; the first end of the straight cone transition section is larger than the second end of the straight cone transition section in diameter; the first end of the convex arc transition section is larger than the second end of the convex arc transition section in diameter; and an inner diameter of the second end of the convex arc transition section is equal to an inner diameter of the underflow pipe (Boadway Fig. 8 illustrates these transitions and described starting in col. 8 line 66 continuing to col. 9 line 41 with more discussions included following).
Boadway does not explicitly disclose that the overflow pipe is electrically isolated from the closed end of the swirl chamber, that the swirl chamber is grounded, that the overflow pipe is connected to a positive pole of a pulse power supply, or that an electrical field is formable between the overflow pipe and the swirl chamber for electro-demulsification. Boadway also does not explicitly disclose that the convex arc transition is a convex elliptical arc transition or wherein the number of the inlet pipe is two: two inlet pipes are centrosymmetric with respect to an axis of the swirl chamber: and a relationship between an inner diameter of each of the two inlet pipes and the inner diameter of the swirl chamber is expressed as follows: Di=0.00312Ds2; wherein Di represents the inner diameter of each of the two inlet pipes, and Ds represents the inner diameter of the swirl chamber.
Sams discloses an apparatus for separating oil-water emulsions using an applied electric field, comprising a cylindrical vessel having a conductive sidewall, a tangential inlet for introducing an emulsion, and at least one internal electrode disposed within the vessel and electrically insulated from the vessel (Sams col. 3-5; claim 1); wherein the vessel sidewall may be grounded an dan internal electrode is connected to a power source such that an electrical potential difference is established between the electrode and the vessel (Sams claims 1 and 6); wherein the electrode is electrically insulated from the vessel (Sams claim 1 “means for insulating”); and wherein the applied electrical potential may be a pulsating DC voltage to promote coalescence of dispersed droplet (Sams claim 8). This teaches an arrangement in which a conductive chamber and an internal conductive member are electrically isolated and connected to a power supply to form an electric field within the fluid for demulsification.
Butler teaches forming transition regions between cylindrical and conical sections using smooth curved profiles in order to reduce turbulence and maintain stable flow through the separator (Butler Fig. 3 and associated description). Ghodrat further teaches that cyclone performance is directly influenced by the contour and curvature of the conical and transition sections, including that variations in curvature affect velocity distribution, pressure drop, and separation efficiency (Ghodrat section 3.2 and Fig. 7). These teachings establish that the specific shape of a curved transition region is a result-effective variable that may be selected to control flow characteristics. A convex elliptical arc transition represents one of a finite number of well-known smooth mathematical curve profiles (e.g., circular, parabolic, elliptical) used in fluid conduit design to provide gradual changes in cross-sectional geometry and reduce flow separation. Selecting an elliptical arc, as opposed to another smooth curve, would have been an obvious design choice within the ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable flow smoothing and controlled acceleration of the fluid, particularly in view of the recognized importance of transition curvature in cyclone performance as taught by Ghodrat. The use of such a curve does not require a change in principle of operation, but merely refines the contour of a known transition region to obtain expected improvements in flow stability and separation efficiency.
Miller discloses a hydrocyclone having two inlet openings that are diametrically opposed relative to the axis of the cyclone (Miller col. 2, lines 4-10 and Fig. 2), thereby teaching two inlet pipes that centrosymmetric with respect to the axis of the swirl chamber. Schubert further teaches that the use of multiple inlets improves vortex stability and flow distribution within the cyclone (Schubert col. 2), reinforcing the use of such symmetric inlet configurations.
Arterburn teaches that the inlet size of a hydrocyclone is selected as a function of the cyclone diameter, including that inlet area is proportional to the square of the cyclone diameter (Arterburn p.1), thereby establishing a known scaling relationship between inlet dimensions and chamber diameter. The claimed relationship represents a specific selection within this known design space and would have been obtainable through routine optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the swirl-type separator of Boadway to include an electrically energized internal member and grounded chamber as taught by Sams, because both references are directed to separation of dispersed phases in fluid systems and address the same underlying problem of improving separation efficiency of emulsified or suspended materials. Sams teaches that applying an electric field between a conductive vessel and an internal electrode promotes coalescence of dispersed droplets, thereby facilitating phase separation. Incorporating such an electric field into the flow region of Boadway’s separator would have predictably enhanced the aggregation of fine dispersed droplets within the swirling flow, thereby improving separation efficiency, which is a recognized goal in hydrocyclone design.
Further, modification of the transition geometry between the swirl chamber and the underflow pipe as taught by Butler and Ghodrat would have been obvious because both references demonstrate that flow behavior and separation efficiency in cyclone-type separators are directly influenced by the contour and curvature of transition regions. Ghodrat in particular identifies cone geometry as a parameter affecting separation performance, thereby evidencing that such geometric features are result-effective variables subject to optimization. Selecting a sequence of curved and conical transition sections, including concave and convex profiles, represents a predictable design choice to control flow acceleration, turbulence, and residence time within the separator. Similarly, providing multiple inlet pipes as taught by Miller, as further supported by Schubert, would have been obvious because such configuration are known to produce a more balanced and stable vortex structure within cyclone separators, improving flow symmetry and separation performance. The use of diametrically opposed inlets represents a known structural arrangement to achieve these effects.
Finally, selecting inlet dimensions relative to chamber diameter as taught by Arterburn would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design, as Arterburn teaches that inlet size is scaled based on cyclone diameter to achieve desired flow characteristics. The claimed dimensional relationship represents a specific selection within a known range of design parameters. Taken together, the combination of these teachings represents the application of known techniques to improve a known device (a swirl-type separator) in a manner that yields predictable results, namely improved separation efficiency through enhanced droplet coalescence, optimized flow geometry, and balanced inlet conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications, as each feature performs the same function it is known to perform in the prior art and no references teaches away from such a combination.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn and Sams discloses the swirl-type demulsification and dehydration device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that a central angle corresponding to the concave arc transition section and an eccentric angle corresponding to the convex elliptical arc transition section are both less than 90°. However, Schubert teaches that the taper angle of the conical transition section in a cyclone separator is less than 90° (Schubert col. 8 line 55), which reflects the requirement for gradual convergence of flow to maintain vortex stability and avoid flow separation. Ghodrat further teaches that the cyclone performance depends on controlled geometry and gradual transitions, thereby reinforcing the use of non-abrupt angles.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn and Sams discloses the swirl-type demulsification (Boadway col. 1 lines 19-20 separating solid particles from liquid suspensions" and col. 10 lines 71-72 maintaining the fibre in a dispersed condition) and dehydration device (Boadway col. 1 line 42 "reduction of the drying time") of claim 1.
Neither Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert nor Arterburn explicitly disclose wherein with respect to a spatial rectangular coordinate system established at a center of an end of the underflow pipe with an extending direction of an axis of the underflow pipe towards the overflow pipe as a positive direction of z-axis, points on the convex elliptical arc transition section satisfy formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
56
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein x and z represent coordinates of a point on an inner wall of the swirler on the x-axis and z-axis, respectively; a represents to a major axis of an ellipse corresponding to the convex elliptical arc transition section, and the major axis is in the same direction with an axis of the swirler; b represents a minor axis of the ellipse corresponding to the convex elliptical arc transition section; Lu represents a length of the underflow pipe; Du represents the inner diameter of the underflow pipe; and Li represents a length of the convex elliptical arc transition section.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Butler teaches the use of smooth curved transition regions to reduce turbulence (Butler Fig. 3), and Ghodrat teaches that cyclone performance depends on the curvature and contour of transition sections, including that such geometric parameters affect velocity distribution and separation efficiency (Ghodrat, Section 3.2 Fig. 7). These teachings establish that the specific mathematical form of the curved transition (e.g., circular, parabolic, or elliptical) is a result-effective variable. Accordingly, selecting an elliptical arc profile and defining it using known geometric relationships would have been on obvious design choice within the ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable control over flow characteristics, such as reducing turbulence and improving separation efficiency.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boadway (US2849930) in view of Butler (CN87107366A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) Miller (US4652363), Ghodrat, Schubert (US5667686), Arterburn and Sams (US5575896A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Young (US5225082).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn and Sams discloses the swirl-type demulsification and dehydration device of claim 4, wherein points on the straight cone transition section satisfy formula (3):
PNG
media_image2.png
61
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Schubert col. 7 par. 3 describes “the decrease in diameter of the separation portion 40 is linear. Thus, the separation portion 40 is a single frustoconical tapered section that has a single taper angle throughout its length”).
None of the combined references disclose wherein K is a constant and satisfies formula (4):
PNG
media_image3.png
64
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Ds represents the inner diameter of the swirl chamber; L2 represents a length of the straight cone transition section; L3 represents a length of the concave arc transition section; Ro represents a radius of a circle corresponding to the concave arc transition section; and Ls represents a length of the overflow pipe.
Young is in the same field of oil-water hydrocyclones with conical sections and teaches the explicit geometric parameterization of straight conical portions in terms of angles lengths and diameters from which the slope of the straight cone is directly computed (Young col. 2 “Notation” section). Given the definitions of cone angle, end diameters and section lengths a person of ordinary skill in the art would compute how much radius shrinks over how far you go along the axis to get the straight-cone slope K. In other words: K = (change in radius) / (axial length); for a cone with a half angle a, this equals tan(a).
Boadway teaches selecting and matching conical segment slopes to a target curved profile by assembling multiple truncated conical parts so the composite meets boundary conditions smoothly (Boadway col. 11 lines 58-63). This confirms routine practice of fixing the straight cone line (slope constant) to satisfy tangency at the joints and the end diameter/position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teaching of Boadway, Butler, Miller in further view of Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn and Sams that a straight frustoconical section has a linear radius-axis relationship with Young’s explicit angle/length/diameter parameterization (from which the slope constant K is immediately derived) and Boadway’s practice of selecting cone slopes to meet adjacent boundary conditions, because all three address routine geometric specification of hydrocyclone tapers aimed at the same performance goals of gradual acceleration, minimized losses and a stable core. Expressing the linear relationship of the straight cone section as an equation and defining the slope constant K in terms of known geometric parameters therefore represents a predictable mathematical formalization of a known geometric relationship, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn, Sams and Young discloses the swirl-type demulsification and dehydration device of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose that points on the concave arc transition section satisfy formula (5):
PNG
media_image4.png
58
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Lt=L1 +L2+L3.
However, Butler teaches forming transition regions as smooth curved junctions (Butler claim 3 (B)), and Boadway teaches forming composite curved profiles that are tangent between adjacent sections to achieve a “theoretically ideal curvature” (Boadway col. 11 lines 60-61). Schubert further teaches selecting geometric parameters to maintain continuity and match boundary conditions between sections (col. 8 line 41).
Young teaches expressing geometric relationships of conical and curved sections in terms of standard parameters such as lengths, diameters, and angles (Young col. 2), which allows the geometry of such sections to be defined analytically. Accordingly, expressing the concave arc transition section using a specific mathematical equation, including defining relationships among section lengths (e.g., Lt = L1 + L2 + L3), represents a routine mathematical description of a known curved transition designed to satisfy tangency and boundary conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boadway, Butler, Miller, Ghodrat, Schubert, Arterburn, Sams and Young discloses the swirl-type demulsification and dehydration device of claim 6, wherein a length Lz of the swirl chamber is 70-75 mm (Ghodrat p. 75 table 1 uses Lc=75mm for the cylindrical part in a small cyclone geometry); the length Lu of the underflow pipe is 390-420 mm (Ghodrat expresses this as Lco and provides ranges from 35-385 in Table 1 p. 75); Lt is 410-450 mm (values within the ranges disclosed in Ghodrat table 1 correspond within this range); and the inner diameter Du of the underflow pipe is 8-10 mm (Ghodrat Table 1 shows diameter of the inlet “Du” for a 75mm swirl chamber is 12.5mm confirming the order of magnitude and that apex diameter is a tunable result effective-variable).
Arterburn likewise teaches standard geometric sizing relationships for cyclone inlets/outlets as functions of body size (routine dimensional tuning within known ranges). Thus specific millimeter ranges recited are routine optimization of known cyclone dimensions. Supported by Schubert’s normalized length limits (Schubert col. 7-8), Young’s tail-section parameterization (Young Col. 2), Ghodrat’s absolute small-scale examples on Table 1 and Arterburn’s standard sizing practice yielding predictable performance.
The selection of specific dimensional ranges within the broader ranges disclosed in Ghodrat and consistent with the scaling relationships taught by Arterburn represents routine optimization of known cyclone dimensions, which would have yielded predictable performance characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779