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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishida (EP 3441145; see English equivalence US 20190091618).
As regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses the claimed invention for a centrifugal separator (2) for cleaning gas containing contaminants comprising: a stationary casing (20-23), enclosing a separation space (fig. 7) through which a gas flow is permitted; a gas inlet (22b) extending through the stationary casing and permitting supply of the gas to be cleaned; a rotating member (50, 60) comprising a plurality of separation members (63) arranged in said separation space and being arranged to rotate around an axis of rotation, a gas outlet (32c, 23a) arranged in an upper portion (fig. 4) of the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of cleaned gas and comprising an outlet opening through a wall of the stationary casing; a drainage outlet (31c) arranged in a lower portion (figs. 5-6, 9 and 16) of the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of liquid contaminants separated from the gas to be cleaned; and a drive member [engine (4), electric motor] for rotating the rotating member, wherein an axial inner side surface (22f) of the stationary casing comprises at least one straight recess (22h, 22i of fig. 19 and 20B) extending in an axial direction for accumulating oil that has been separated in said plurality of separation members, wherein said at least one recess comprises a first radial recess surface (22h) extending from the axial inner side surface (22f) of the stationary casing, and wherein said at least one recess extends axially on the inner side surface at least along an axial length of a radially outermost portion of said separation plurality of members (fig. 19).
Ishida discloses the claimed features, as wherein said at least one recess extends above an uppermost separation member of the plurality of separation members and extends below a lowermost separation member of the plurality of separation members (22i of annotated fig. 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternative, to the extent not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to extend the recess beyond both the uppermost and lowermost separation members (i.e., increase its length) to enhance centrifugal separator performance, as such modification is a matter of design choice. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; In re Riven, 156 USPQ 679.
Absent evidence of criticality and unexpective results, the claimed extension represents an obvious variation within the ordinary skill in the art.
Ishida as modified discloses wherein said at least one recess has a tip-shaped cross-section (annotated fig. 20B) as seen in a radial plane such that the cross-section of the at least one recess tapers from a radial inner position to a radial outer position, and wherein said tip-shaped cross-section of the at least one recess is formed by said first radial recess surface extending from the axial inner side surface of the stationary casing and a second recess surface forming an angle with a radial direction, the first radial recess surface having a maximum length extending in the radial direction (annotated fig. 20B).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 2, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the axial inner side surface comprises at least one rib (22g of fig. 20B) extending axially alongside said at least one recess.
As regarding claim 3, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said at least one rib (22g) extends axially adjacent to said first radial recess surface (22h).
As regarding claim 4, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first radial recess surface (22h) also forms a portion of the at least one rib (22g of figs. 19 and 20B).
As regarding claim 5, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an inner area of the at least one recess is less than half of an area of a total axial inner side surface of the stationary casing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein an inner area of the at least one recess is less than half of an area of a total axial inner side surface of the stationary casing in order to enhance centrifugal separator performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 6, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the axial inner side surface (22f) of the stationary casing comprises at least three recesses (22h of figs. 19 and 20B).
As regarding claim 7, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said at least one recess (22h) extends axially down to a bottom (figs. 17 and 19) of the stationary casing.
As regarding claim 8, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the plurality of separation members is a stack of separation discs (63).
As regarding claim 9, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one recess (22h) extends along a whole axial length of the axial inner side surface (fig. 17).
As regarding claim 12, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said at least one rib and an adjacent of said at least one recess form a Z-shaped cross-section (annotated fig. 20B) in a radial plane.
As regarding claim 13, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the gas inlet (22b) is arranged at the upper portion (fig. 7) of the stationary casing.
As regarding claim 14, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the plurality of separation members is a stack of separation discs (63), and wherein the gas inlet (22b) is arranged to guide the gas into a central space of the stack of separation discs axially from above, and wherein said centrifugal separator further comprises a guiding member (32b) for guiding the gas, liquid oil and larger aerosols from the central space (32a of figs. 5-7) of the stack of separation discs to interspaces between the discs of the stack of separation discs (63) at an axial entry position that is below an uppermost axial position (figs. 5-7) of the stack of separation discs.
As regarding claim 15, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the guiding member is arranged to guide the gas at the axial entry position that is below an upper 25% of a total axial length of the stack of separation discs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the guiding member is arranged to guide the gas at the axial entry position that is below an upper 25% of a total axial length of the stack of separation discs in order to enhance centrifugal separator performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 16, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the guiding member (32b) is in the form of a cylindrical collar (32b of fig. 10) arranged in the central space of the stack of separation discs for bringing the gas axially downwards in the central space (fig. 10) of the stack of separation discs.
As regarding claim 17, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said stack of separation discs is arranged axially under a top disc and said collar (32b of fig. 10) extends axially down from an inner radius of said top disc (63).
As regarding claim 18, Ishida as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ishida as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the axial inner side surface of the stationary casing comprises at least five recesses (figs. 19 and 20B).
Claims 19-20 are rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the functional differences between the claimed recess and Ishida’s recess 22h, including oil sheltering, oil accumulation at a radial outermost portion, and reduction of oil droplets being entrained in the rotating gas stream. However, these functions do not impose additional structural limitations on the claim. Also, claim 1 does not recite a requirement that recess shelter oil from a rotating gas stream, facilitate accumulation of oil at a radial outermost portion, or prevent oil droplets from being ripped from the surface.
Applicant’s remark argues that Ishida fails to disclose or suggest the first radial recess surface having a maximum length extending in the radial direction. Specifically, Applicant assert that the two inner surfaces of Ishida’s recess 22h each form an angle with the radial direction does not establish that Ishida lacks a surface having a maximum length extending in the radial direction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not require the first radial recess surface to be exclusively aligned with, or parallel to, the radial direction, nor does it exclude a surface that additionally extends at an angle relative to the radial direction.
Further, whether guide portion 22i are relied upon to satisfy the claimed feature does not alter the disclosure of Ishida’s recess 22h or the claimed relationship of the maximum length extending in the radial direction.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights