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 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “an arrangement of additional separation devices within the hub would be disadvantageous for the screw hub now more specifically defined by amended main Claim 1” (page 14, Remarks). This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on the bodily incorporation of the entirety of DE 575314 into Finkelston. Rather, DE 575314 is relied upon for its teaching of an open strut configuration for a screw conveyor structure. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference…Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
In response to Applicant’s argument that “due to the different types of centrifuges (solid bowl screw centrifuge vs. separator), there is initially no reason for a person skilled in the art to further develop the structure of the device disclosed in DE575314 into a hub for a solid bowl screw centrifuge” (page 15, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagree. The centrifuge of DE 575314 discloses analogous art pertaining to screw conveyor for centrifugal drums. This is in the same general centrifuge art as the claimed invention’s screw hub for a centrifuge screw.
DE 575314 teaches that screws 18-21 are attached on the outer sides of struts 3, that the struts are diagonal to absorb tangential forces, and that this arrangement creates “triangular connections” which significantly increases the resistance/strength of the latticework. DE 575314 also teaches that the flow between the struts and the outer edges remains free under all circumstances. Thus, contrary to applicant’s assertion that “[t]he ‘314 German reference neither teaches nor suggests the flow possibilities of the clarified portions” (page 14, Remarks), DE 575314 does teach and suggest free flow between the struts.
Applicant’s argument regarding “high pond depth” (page 15, Remarks) is also not persuasive since the pending claims do not recite any particular pond depth. It is well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982). Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the screw hub structure of Finkelston with the strut arrangement of DE 575314 in order to provide an open structural support arrangement capable of absorbing tangential forces while preserving flow through the structure, as discussed in the rejections below. The rejection over Finkelston in view of DE 575314 is therefore deemed valid and is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of web elements, plurality of openings, web pair (claim 6), tube (claim 7), solid bowl screw centrifuge, and drum (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In the reply filed 13 January 2026, Applicant states that new Figures 3 and 4 are submitted. However, no replacement drawings were actually received. Accordingly, the drawing objection is maintained.
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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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 1-3, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelston in view of DE 575314 (Aktiebolaget Separator).
Regarding claim 1, Finkelston discloses a screw hub (hub 40; Fig. 1) for a centrifugal screw (conveyor 30; Fig. 1), wherein the screw hub in the longitudinal direction has at least one cylindrical longitudinal portion and a portion at the solid-discharge end (end where solids discharge openings 24 are located; Fig. 1), wherein the cylindrical longitudinal portion at least in sections has an open wall structure (via annular array of feed passages 72; Fig. 1), and the portion at the solid-discharge end has an at least partially closed shape deviating from a simple cone shape (see annotated Fig. 1 below), but does not disclose wherein the open wall structure at least in sections is formed by a plurality of web elements delimiting a plurality of openings, wherein the web elements relative to a longitudinal axis are arranged to be radially outside at the cylindrical longitudinal portion and form a circumference of the longitudinal portion, wherein two web elements each form a web pair delimiting at least one opening, wherein the two web elements of the web pair extend in the longitudinal direction and transversely to the longitudinal direction, or a first web element of the web pair respectively extends in the longitudinal direction, and a second web element of the web pair respectively extends transversely to the longitudinal direction.
DE 575314 discloses analogous art related to screw conveyor for centrifuge drum, characterized in that the open wall structure at least in sections is formed by a plurality of web elements (struts 3; Fig. 1) delimiting a plurality of openings (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the web elements relative to a longitudinal axis are arranged to be radially outside at the cylindrical longitudinal portion and form a circumference of the longitudinal portion, wherein two web elements each form a web pair (see annotated Fig. 1 below) delimiting at least one opening, wherein the two web elements of the web pair extend in the longitudinal direction and transversely to the longitudinal direction. 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 screw hub of Finkelston with the open wall structure configuration taught by DE 575314 for the purpose of providing a latticework that can absorb the tangential forces and create triangular connections that increases the resistance, while the flow between the struts 3 and the outer edges of the plate remains free under all circumstances (page 3 paragraphs 4-6 of machine translation of DE 575314).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 discloses the portion at the solid-discharged end is designed to be a cylinder portion and/or a cylindrical tube portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below, Finkelston).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 discloses the cylinder portion and/or the cylindrical tube portion are designed to be stepped such that the cylinder portion and/or the cylindrical tube portion have/has at least two portions having different diameters in the longitudinal direction of the screw hub (see annotated Fig. 1, Finkelston).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 discloses the cylindrical longitudinal portion consists of an open wall structure (via annular array of feed passages 72; Fig. 1, Finkelston).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 discloses that the open wall structure at least in sections is formed by longitudinal rods (struts 3; Fig. 1, DE 575314).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 discloses a centrifugal screw (conveyor 30; Fig. 1, Finkelston) having a screw hub (hub 40; Fig. 1, Finkelston) according to claim 1, and a screw spiral (screw flights 42; Fig. 1, Finkelston) surrounding the screw hub.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelston in view of DE 575314, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110773330 (Mu et al., hereinafter Mu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 does not disclose the portion at the solid-discharge end has a double truncated cone shape.
Mu discloses analogous art related to horizontal screw centrifuge, characterized in that the portion at the solid-discharge end has a double truncated cone shape (first tapered sleeve 51 and second conical sleeve 52; Figure). 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 screw hub of the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 with the double truncated cone shaped portion taught by Mu for the purpose of reducing dead angle of the spiral blade and pressing plate, while enhancing the pressing baffle plate for rigid slag press (page 3 lines 26-40 of machine translation of Mu).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelston in view of DE 575314, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0574364 (Rapanelli, hereinafter Rapanelli).
Regarding claim 7, Finkelston does not disclose the open wall structure at least in sections is formed by a tube in which a plurality of openings is designed for the passage of a medium, wherein the openings each have a longitudinal extension which is larger than the width of the respective opening.
Rapanelli discloses analogous art related to horizontal screw centrifuge, characterized in that the open wall structure at least in sections is formed by a tube (hollow body 2a; Fig. 1) in which a plurality of openings (rectangular apertures 8a-8d; Fig. 1) is designed for the passage of a medium, wherein the openings each have a longitudinal extension which is larger than the width of the respective opening (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the screw hub of the combination of Finkelston and DE 575314 with the open wall structure configuration taught by Rapanelli for the purpose of allowing the oily slurry to pass through into the region bounded by the surface of the hollow body 2a and by the inner part of the drum 1 (col. 2 lines 37-58 of Rapanelli).
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