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 30 September 2025 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 4-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015105988 (Schneider et al.; hereinafter Schneider) in view of Erickson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,025, hereinafter Erickson).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses a device (screw centrifuge 10; Figure) for continuously separating flowable materials of different densities of a suspension comprising: a drum (12; Figure) rotatably supported about an axis of rotation, the drum being rotatable about the axis of rotation by a drum motor (24; Figure) and surrounding a hollow space (chamber/space inside drum, see Figure); a screw conveyor (screw conveyor 16; Figure) rotatably supported about the axis of rotation, the screw conveyor being at least partially arranged in the hollow space (screw conveyor 16 located inside drum 12; Figure) and rotatable about the axis of rotation by a screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure); an inflow pipe (supply pipe 36; Figure) for supplying the suspension to the hollow space, wherein the drum has an outflow (outlet 52; Figure) for the removal of a centrate acquired from the suspension from the hollow space and wherein the outflow section has a free jet section (see annotated Figure below) in which the centrate forms a free jet; and a measurement device (object sensor 56; Figure) contactlessly determining light properties of the centrate (page 2 lines 34-38, page 3 lines 3-5 of machine translation), but does not explicitly describe the measurement device as determining both transmission and reflection of the centrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
531
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Erickson discloses analogous art related to an optical measurement device for fluids, the measurement device (turbidity sensor 20, Fig. 1) by which transmission and reflection of the centrate in the free jet section can be contactlessly determined (turbidity sensors can use both transmitted and reflected light can be analyzed independently or compared to each other to determine the magnitude of turbidity of the water, col. 1 lines 27-31; the comparison of scattered and transmitted light passing through a detection zone of particulate matter can be carefully analyzed and compared to each other in order to determine the type and quantity of particulates suspended in the water, col. 5 lines 39-43). 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 device of Schneider with the measurement device as taught by Erickson for the purpose of determining the type and quantity of particulates suspended in the liquid (col. 5 lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses wherein the measurement device (turbidity sensor 20; Fig. 1, Erickson) has at least one transducer (turbidity sensor necessarily includes at least one transducer, because optical sensing requires conversion of detected light into an electrical signal) that outputs an indication signal when the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection exceeds or falls below a specific value (turbidity sensor determines that the magnitude of turbidity of the water is within a preselected range, col. 2 lines 61-63, Erickson).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses wherein the measurement device (object sensor 56; Figure, Schneider) interacts with a control unit (computing unit 62; Figure, Schneider) by which the drum motor (24; Figure, Schneider) and/or the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, Schneider) are controllable in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or the determined reflection (page 3 lines 1-10 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses wherein the device comprises: a feed pump (38; Figure, Schneider) for conveying the suspension into the hollow space through the inflow pipe (supply pipe 36; Figure, Schneider); and a metering pump (pump 42; Figure, Schneider) for conveying a flocculation agent into the hollow space, wherein the feed pump and/or the metering pump are controllable by the control unit in dependence on the determined transmission and/or on the determined reflection (page 2 lines 39-42 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses a method of continuously separating flowable materials of different densities of a suspension having the device in accordance with claim 1, said method comprising the following steps: supplying the suspension to the hollow space through the inflow pipe (supply pipe 36; Figure, Schneider) (page 2 lines 27-28 of machine translation, Schneider); rotating the drum about the axis of rotation by means of the drum motor (24; Figure, Schneider); rotating the screw conveyor about the axis of rotation by means of the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, Schneider); removing the centrate acquired from the suspension from the hollow space through the outflow (outlet 52; Figure, Schneider), with the centrate forming a free jet in the free jet section (page 2 lines 30-32; Figure, Schneider); contactlessly determining the transmission of the centrate and the reflection by means of the measurement device in the free jet section (turbidity sensors can use both transmitted and reflected light can be analyzed independently or compared to each other to determine the magnitude of turbidity of the water, col. 1 lines 27-31; the comparison of scattered and transmitted light passing through a detection zone of particulate matter can be carefully analyzed and compared to each other in order to determine the type and quantity of particulates suspended in the water, col. 5 lines 39-43, Erickson).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses rotating the drum about the axis of rotation at a first rotational speed by means of the drum motor (24; Figure, page 2 lines 24-26 of machine translation, Schneider); rotating the screw conveyor about the axis of rotation at a second rotational speed by means of the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, page 2 lines 24-26 of machine translation, Schneider); changing the rotational speed difference by means of the control unit in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection (page 3 lines 1-8, Schneider).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses conveying a flocculation agent amount into the hollow space by the metering pump (pump 42; Figure, Schneider); and changing the flocculation agent amount by controlling the metering pump by means of the control unit (computing unit 62; Figure, Schneider) in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection (page 3 lines 11-16; 18-26 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses conveying a suspension into the hollow space by the feed pump (38; Figure, Schneider); and changing the suspension amount by controlling the feed pump by means of the control unit (computing unit 62; Figure, Schneider) in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection (page 3 lines 11-16; 18-26 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schneider and Erickson does not explicitly disclose detecting a reduction of the undermetering in the centrate on a relative increase of the transmission and the reflection; or detecting an increase in the undermetering in the centrate on a relative drop of the transmission and the reflection; or detecting an increase in the overmetering of the flocculation agent on a relative drop of the transmission and a relative increase in the reflection; or detecting a reduction of the overmetering of the flocculation agent on a relative increase of the transmission and a relative drop of the reflection.
However, Schneider teaches optically monitoring centrate quality and adjusting process parameters (including flocculation agent dosing and differential speed) based on detected changes in optical properties of the centrate (page 3 lines 1-29 of machine translation). Erickson teaches that relative changes in transmission and reflection are indicators of changes in particulate concentration and clarification state of a fluid (col. 5 lines 16-45). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the process conditions recited in claim 11 in the method of Schneider using relative changes in transmission and reflection as taught by Erickson for the purpose of maintaining the desired centrate quality (page 3 lines 1-29 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses when the centrate 50 exceeds a set value, the clarification of the centrate is improved by increasing the differential speed (page 3 lines 1-8 of machine translation, Schneider), but does not directly teach minimizing the rotational speed difference until the solid content in the centrate does not increase or only increases within predefinable limits and/or the maximum permitted conveying torque of the screw conveyor is not exceeded. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that since the differential speed can be increased to affect the centrate clarification, the differential speed can also be decreased or minimized to adjust the centrate clarification so that the centrate stays within predefinable limits or desired setpoints (page 3 lines 1-8 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses optimizing the flocculation agent amount using the relative change of the transmission and/or the relative change of the reflection (page 3 lines 11-16; 18-26 of machine translation, Schneider); and/or optimizing the rotational speed difference using the relative change of the transmission and/or the relative change of the reflection (page 3 lines 3-8, Schneider).
Claims 2, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Erickson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102006050921 (Giersberg).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schneider and Erickson discloses the free jet section (see annotated figure of Schneider above), but does not disclose wherein the outflow is divided into a first outflow section and into a second outflow section.
Giersberg discloses an analogous art related to a method where the filtrate water is irradiated, reflection signals are detected by the filtrate, and if there is a deviation from a given reflection value, an increase or decrease in the amount of flocculation aids added takes place (page 2 lines 33-35 of machine translation) wherein the outflow (filtrate water pipe 36; Fig. 2) is divided into a first outflow section (filtrate water pipe 36; Fig. 2) and into a second outflow section (measuring channel 38; Fig. 2). 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 device of the combination of Schneider and Erickson with the second outflow section as taught by Giersberg and to position the free jet section in the second outflow section for the purpose of providing a separate channel for taking measurements of the solids content (page 4 lines 11-17 of machine translation, Giersberg).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Giersberg discloses wherein the measurement device (turbidity sensor 20; Fig. 1, Erickson) has at least one transducer (turbidity sensor necessarily includes at least one transducer, because optical sensing requires conversion of detected light into an electrical signal) that outputs an indication signal when the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection exceeds or falls below a specific value (turbidity sensor determines that the magnitude of turbidity of the water is within a preselected range, col. 2 lines 61-63, Erickson).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Giersberg discloses wherein the measurement device (object sensor 56; Figure, Schneider) interacts with a control unit (computing unit 62; Figure, Schneider) by which the drum motor (24; Figure, Schneider) and/or the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, Schneider) are controllable in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or the determined reflection (page 3 lines 1-10 of machine translation, Schneider).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Giersberg discloses a method of continuously separating flowable materials of different densities of a suspension having the device in accordance with claim 1, said method comprising the following steps: supplying the suspension to the hollow space through the inflow pipe (supply pipe 36; Figure, page 2 lines 27-28 of machine translation, Schneider); rotating the drum about the axis of rotation by means of the drum motor (24; Figure, Schneider); rotating the screw conveyor about the axis of rotation by means of the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, Schneider); removing the centrate acquired from the suspension from the hollow space through the outflow (outlet 52; Figure, Schneider), with the centrate forming a free jet in the free jet section (page 2 lines 30-32; Figure, Schneider); and contactlessly determining the transmission of the centrate and/or the reflection by means of the measurement device in the free jet section (page 2 lines 34-38, page 3 lines 3-5 of machine translation; object sensor 56 measures brightness, color, gray level, and contrast, which are properties directly related to transmission and reflection, Schneider).
Claims 3, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schneider in view of Erickson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morales Molina et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0261355, hereinafter Morales Molina).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schneider and Erickson does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement device has at least two light sources and at least one light receiver or at least one light source and at least two light receivers.
Morales Molina discloses an analogous art related to optically characterizing a sample and detecting process such as sedimentation, flocculation, coalescence, phase separation, flotation, etc. (para. [0289]), wherein the measurement device has at least one light source and at least two light receivers (para. [0289]). 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 device of the combination of Schneider and Erickson with the type of measurement device taught by Morales Molina for the purpose of using data collected in relation to light intensity in transmission and reflection to characterize the sample and detect process such as flocculation (para. [0289], Morales Molina).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Morales Molina discloses wherein the measurement device (turbidity sensor 20; Fig. 1, Erickson) has at least one transducer (turbidity sensor necessarily includes at least one transducer, because optical sensing requires conversion of detected light into an electrical signal) that outputs an indication signal when the change of the determined transmission and/or of the determined reflection exceeds or falls below a specific value (turbidity sensor determines that the magnitude of turbidity of the water is within a preselected range, col. 2 lines 61-63, Erickson).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Morales Molina discloses wherein the measurement device (object sensor 56; Figure, Schneider) interacts with a control unit (computing unit 62; Figure, Schneider) by which the drum motor (24; Figure, Schneider) and/or the screw conveyor motor (screw motor 30; Figure, Schneider) are controllable in dependence on the change of the determined transmission and/or the determined reflection (page 3 lines 1-10 of machine translation, Schneider).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schneider in view of Erickson, and further in view of Giersberg, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morales Molina et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0261355, hereinafter Morales Molina).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Giersberg does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement device has at least two light sources and at least one light receiver or at least one light source and at least two light receivers.
Morales Molina discloses an analogous art related to optically characterizing a sample and detecting process such as sedimentation, flocculation, coalescence, phase separation, flotation, etc. (para. [0289]), wherein the measurement device has at least one light source and at least two light receivers (para. [0289]). 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 device of the combination of Schneider, Erickson, and Giersberg with the type of measurement device taught by Morales Molina for the purpose of using data collected in relation to light intensity in transmission and reflection to characterize the sample and detect process such as flocculation (para. [0289], Morales Molina).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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