NON-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 claim amendments and arguments filed 25 November 2015 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The existing prior art applied below are deemed to render the pending claims obvious as expressed in the rejections.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Werner’s “fixtures/installations is to reduce the flow velocity of the liquid in the area between the fixtures and the drum. These fixtures are therefore not intended to stabilise or increase the bending stiffness of the centrifuge screw” (page 8, Remarks), the examiner notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the applicant’s advantage, and a structural member spanning the distance between the windings of the centrifugal screw would inherently increase rigidity of a screw without said structure. Prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP 2145.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Werner does not disclose that rods are formed across several binding sections” (page 9, Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Werner explicitly discloses fittings, such as round bolts 17c, which corresponds to the rods, are positioned between adjacent screw blades, which reasonably reads on rods that extend across multiple windings.
Applicant also argues that the drain pipes or channels disclosed in Hiller are intended only to influence liquid level and do not stabilize the centrifuge screw (page 9, Remarks). Again, the examiner notes that statements of intended use or results achieved do not distinguish over structurally identical prior art. In this case, the drain pipes 10 of Hiller extends along the screw and spaced from the hub meets the structural limitations of claim 1 and inherently contribute to the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0076476 (Werner).
Regarding claim 1, Werner discloses a centrifuge screw having an essentially tube-shaped screw hub (screw base body 13, Fig.1) and a screw spiral (“screw blades”, page 7 line 17 of machine translation), wherein a spiral basis of the screw spiral at least in section is directly attached to the tube-shaped screw hub (screw blade is on a screw base body, page 7 lines 24-25), characterized in that rods (fittings 17a, 17b, 17c, Fig. 1A-1C) are designed in the longitudinal direction of the centrifugal screw between at least two winding portions, wherein the rods are designed to be spaced completely or almost completely from the screw hub (page 7 lines 19-21 of machine translation), wherein the rods (fittings 17a, 17b, 17c, Fig. 1A-1C) extend across several winding portions (page 7 lines 7-23 of machine translation) and increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw. The fittings of Werner inherently increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw. The claimed “increase in bending rigidity” does not constitute a structural distinction but instead describes an intended or inherent effect of the fittings or rods.
Regarding claim 3, Werner discloses the rods (fittings 17a, 17b, 17c, Fig. 1A-1C) are designed to be in parallel and/or similar to each other (Fig. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 8, Werner discloses the rods extend essentially completely across a cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw (the screw base body is cylindrical and the rods extend between all screw blades of the screw base body, page 7 lines 7-23 of machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Werner discloses the rods extend at least in sections starting from a/the cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw up to the portion at the solid-discharging end of the centrifugal screw (the screw base body is cylindrical and the rods extend between all screw blades, which would include the portion at the solid-discharging end of the centrifugal screw, page 7 lines 7-23 of machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Werner discloses the screw hub is a tube screw hub (screw base body 13, 23, 33, Fig. 1, 2A, 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Werner discloses a solid bowl screw centrifuge (“decanter centrifuge”, Abstract) comprising a centrifugal screw (“conveyor worm”, Abstract) located within a drum, wherein the centrifugal screw is designed according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 2166909 (Hiller).
Regarding claim 1, Hiller discloses a centrifuge screw (Fig. 1) having an essentially tube-shaped screw hub (screw body 2, Fig. 1) and a screw spiral (flight 1, Fig. 1), wherein a spiral basis of the screw spiral at least in section is directly attached to the tube-shaped screw hub (see Fig. 1), characterized in that rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) are designed in the longitudinal direction of the centrifugal screw between at least two winding portions, wherein the rods are designed to be spaced completely or almost completely from the screw hub (see Fig. 1), wherein the rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) extend across several winding portions and increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw. The pipes of Hiller inherently increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw. The claimed “increase in bending rigidity” does not constitute a structural distinction but instead describes an intended or inherent effect of the pipes or rods.
Regarding claim 3, Howe discloses the rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) are designed to be in parallel and/or similar to each other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Howe discloses the rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) are guided though openings of screw spiral (flight 1, Fig. 1), wherein the openings preferably are circular (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Howe discloses the rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) extend essentially completely across a cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Howe discloses the rods (drain pipes 10, Fig. 1) extend at least in sections starting from a/the cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw up to the portion at the sold-discharging end of the centrifugal screw (conical portion of the centrifuge screw, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Howe discloses a solid bowl screw centrifuge (Fig. 1) comprising a centrifugal screw (flight 1, Fig. 1) located within a drum (8, Fig. 1), wherein the centrifugal screw is designed according to claim 1.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0076476 (Werner).
Regarding claims 5-7, Werner discloses that the diameter of the screw hub (screw base body 13, Fig.1) is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral (“screw blades”, page 7 line 17 of machine translation); the diameter of the circle, where the rods (fittings 17a, 17b, 17c, Fig. 1A-1C) are arranged, is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral; and the diameter of one rod (fittings 17c, Fig. 1A-1C) is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral (page 7 lines 7-23 of machine translation, Fig. 1A-1C), but does not specifically teach that the ratio of the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.6; the ratio of the diameter of the circle, where the rods are arranged, to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.8; the ratio of the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.15. Werner teaches that the fittings 17 prevent sedimented particles on the inner surface of the drum from washed away. The fittings are arranged somewhat below the center of the liquid level 16 and are at a distance from the drum 10 which is dimensioned such that the solid cake to be transported can be conveyed under the fittings. The shape and distance between the built-in elements are dimensioned such that sedimenting particles slide on relatively steep surfaces of the built-in parts and can enter the protected area below the built-in parts (page 7 lines 7-23 of machine translation, Fig. 1A-1E). Based on the teaching of Werner, 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 centrifuge screw of Werner with the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral in the claimed ranges, for the purpose of varying the ratios within predictable ranges to achieve a desired combination of available flow area for separation efficiency, mechanical support for the screw spiral, size of components for structural strength, or other process conditions, which are considered at most optimum choices, lacking any disclosed criticality.
With respect to the limitations of the parameters regarding the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, which are present in the claims at issue, the examiner has found that the specification contained no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, since where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification may result in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normannet et al., 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 66 USPQ 314.
More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
No probative evidence is of record to demonstrate that the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and/or other variables of the invention are significant or are anything more than one of numerous dimensions a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for purposes of merely changing the configurations and/or dimensions to obtain different results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 148 USPQ 459. Accordingly, the examiner argues that these parameters are rather arbitrary and thus obvious over the prior art per MPEP 2144.05(II)(III).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a reason to optimize prior art parameters may be found in a PHOSITA’s desire to improve on the prior art. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”’).
Claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (U.S. Patent No. 2,919,848) in view of Hiller.
Regarding claim 1, Howe discloses a centrifuge screw (helical conveyor 30, Fig. 1) having an essentially tube-shaped screw hub (tubular hub 33, Fig. 1) and a screw spiral (helical plates 31, Fig. 1), characterized in that rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1) are designed in the longitudinal direction of the centrifugal screw between at least two winding portions, wherein the rods are designed to be spaced completely or almost completely from the screw hub (see Fig. 1), wherein the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1) extend across several winding portions (Fig. 1) and increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw (the ribs of Howe inherently increase the bending rigidity of the centrifugal screw. The claimed “increase in bending rigidity” does not constitute a structural distinction but instead describes an intended or inherent effect of the ribs or rods), but does not explicitly disclose that a spiral basis of the screw spiral is directly attached to the tube-shaped screw hub at least in sections.
Hiller discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal screw having a screw spiral (flight 1, Fig. 1) whose spiral basis is directly attached to a tube-shaped screw hub (screw body 2, 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 modified the centrifugal screw of Howe to attach the spiral basis of the screw spiral directly to the screw hub as taught by Hiller for the purpose of assembling a screw inside a centrifuge drum for conveying solids to discharge openings (para. [0012] of machine translation). Such a modification is no more than the simple substitution of one known screw to hub attachment technique for another known technique, yielding predicable structural results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) are designed to be in parallel and/or similar to each other (Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) are guided though openings of screw spiral, wherein the openings preferably are designed as longitudinal recess starting from the spiral basis (openings of the screw spiral extend the length of the spider/spokes 32 from the screw hub 33 to the helical plates 31, Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claims 5-7, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses that the diameter of the screw hub (tubular hub 33, Fig. 1, Howe) is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral (helical plates 31, Fig. 1, Howe); the diameter of the circle, where the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) are arranged, is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral; and the diameter of one rod (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) is smaller than the outer diameter of the screw spiral (helical plates 31, Fig. 1, Howe), but does not specifically teach that the ratio of the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.6; the ratio of the diameter of the circle, where the rods are arranged, to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.8; the ratio of the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral is 0.15. Howe teaches that the helical plates 31 are supported on the tubular hub 33 via spiders 32 and longitudinal ribs 34 (col. 2 lines 59-61). 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 centrifuge screw of the combination of Howe and Hiller with the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral in the claimed ranges, for the purpose of varying the ratios within predictable ranges to achieve a desired combination of available flow area for separation efficiency, mechanical support for the screw spiral, size of components for structural strength, or other process conditions, which are considered at most optimum choices, lacking any disclosed criticality.
With respect to the limitations of the parameters regarding the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, which are present in the claims at issue, the examiner has found that the specification contained no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, since where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification may result in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normannet et al., 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 66 USPQ 314.
More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
No probative evidence is of record to demonstrate that the ratio between the diameter of the screw hub to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, the ratio between the diameter of the circle where the rods are arranged to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and the ratio between the diameter of one rod to the outer diameter of the screw spiral, and/or other variables of the invention are significant or are anything more than one of numerous dimensions a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for purposes of merely changing the configurations and/or dimensions to obtain different results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 148 USPQ 459. Accordingly, the examiner argues that these parameters are rather arbitrary and thus obvious over the prior art per MPEP 2144.05(II)(III).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a reason to optimize prior art parameters may be found in a PHOSITA’s desire to improve on the prior art. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”’).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) extend essentially completely across a cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw (the screw hub 33 is cylindrical and rods extend across the entire screw hub, Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) extend at least in sections starting from a/the cylindrical longitudinal portion of the centrifugal screw (the portion of the screw hub 33, Fig. 1, Howe) up to the portion at the sold-discharging end of the centrifugal screw (the lower conical portion of the helical conveyor 30, Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses metal sheets (spiders/spokes 32, Fig. 1, Howe) are designed in sections between the screw hub (tubular hub 33, Fig. 1, Howe) and individual rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) and/or rod portions.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses at least one of the metal sheets (spiders/spokes 32, Fig. 1, Howe) has at least one metal sheet opening; characterized in that at least one of the metal sheets is designed to be perforated (openings between spokes 32, Howe).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) are designed to be bent at least in sections; characterized in that the bent rods are positioned such in the longitudinal direction of the centrifugal screw, that the bent rods from a rod body, the largest outer diameter of which is designed in a middle segment of the centrifuge screw (see annotated partial Fig. 1 below, Howe).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the rods (longitudinal ribs 34, Fig. 1, Howe) each are bent at several places such that several bending portions are formed (see annotated partial Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses the screw hub is designed as a tube screw hub (tubular hub 33, Fig. 1, Howe).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Howe and Hiller discloses a solid bowl screw centrifuge comprising a centrifuge screw (helical conveyor 30, Fig. 1. Howe) located within a drum (bowl 1, Fig. 1, Howe), wherein the centrifuge screw is designed according to claim 1.
Conclusion
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