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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01. The title should specify the conduit system for recirculation feature.
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, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook (U.S. Patent No. 4,759,744) in view of Kaldewey (U.S. Patent No. 2,917230).
Regarding claim 1, Krook discloses a centrifugal separator (Figure) for separating a liquid heavy phase and a liquid light phase from a liquid feed mixture, comprising: a frame (Krook inherently includes a structural support/frame because the stationary member 16 and drive shaft 14 must be supported by a structure to enable operation of the centrifugal separator); a drive member (drive shaft 4, Figure); and a rotating part (rotor 1 and 2, Figure), wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the rotating part in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation, and wherein the rotating part comprises a centrifuge rotor (rotor 1 and 2, Figure) enclosing a separation space (separation chamber 5, Figure) and a sludge space, wherein the separation space comprises a stack of separation discs (6, Figure) arranged coaxially around the axis of rotation and wherein said sludge space is arranged radially outside said stack of separation discs (see annotated Figure below); wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises an inlet (17, Figure) for receiving the liquid feed mixture into the centrifuge rotor, a first outlet (38, Figure) for the liquid heavy phase and a second outlet (18, Figure) for the liquid light phase, wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises a conduit system (39, 41, 43, 37, 31, 30, 29, Figure) for recirculating separated liquid heavy phase discharged from the first outlet to the sludge space within the centrifuge rotor of the centrifugal separator without mixing the recirculated separated liquid heavy phase with the liquid feed mixture (col. 4 lines 49-58), but does not disclose wherein said centrifugal separator further comprises sludge outlets, other than the first and second outlets, for discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture.
PNG
media_image1.png
933
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaldewey teaches a centrifugal separator wherein said centrifugal separator further comprises sludge outlets (outlets 11, Fig. 1), other than the first and second outlets (outlet 12 and outlet 15, Fig. 1), for discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture. 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 centrifugal separator of Krook with the sludge outlets as taught by Kaldewey for the purpose of separating a liquid that contains a solid (col. 1 lines 17-22, Kaldewey).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein the conduit system is arranged for recirculating separated liquid heavy phase to a radial inner position of the sludge space (“[f]urther pipes 29 extend radially inward from the radially outermost parts of the separation chamber”, col. 4 lines 20-21, Krook).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein said stack of separation discs is arranged axially on top of a distributor (distributor 7 and conical partition 9, Figure, Krook), and wherein said conduit system comprises at least one channel (channels 30, Figure, Krook) arranged axially below said distributor for guiding the recirculated liquid heavy phase radially outwards to said sludge space.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein the conduit system further comprises a recirculation inlet (37, Figure, Krook) and a conduit (outlet conduit 39, branch conduit 41, and conduit 43, Figure, Krook) connecting the first outlet (38, Figure, Krook) for the liquid heavy phase with said recirculation inlet.
Regarding claim 10, Krook discloses a method of separating a liquid heavy phase and a liquid light phase from a liquid feed mixture (col. 4 lines 59-52), comprising the steps of: a) introducing (via inlet 17, Figure) the liquid feed mixture into the centrifugal separator according to claim 1; b) discharging (via outlet 18, Figure) a separated liquid light phase from said centrifugal separator; c) discharging a separated liquid heavy phase from said centrifugal separator; d) recirculating (via conduit system 39, 41, 43, 37, 31, 30, 29, Figure) at least a portion of the discharged separated liquid heavy phase to the sludge space without mixing the recirculated separated liquid heavy phase with the liquid feed mixture, but does not disclose ejecting a separated solid phase through a set of radial outlets arranged at an outer periphery of the centrifuge rotor.
Kaldewey teaches ejecting a separated solid phase through a set of radial outlets (outlets 11, Fig. 1) arranged at an outer periphery of the centrifuge rotor. 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 method of Krook with the radial outlets as taught by Kaldewey for the purpose of separating a liquid that contains a solid (col. 1 lines 17-22, Kaldewey).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein said stack of separation discs is arranged axially on top of a distributor (distributor 7 and conical partition 9, Figure, Krook), and wherein said recirculation (channels 30, Figure, Krook) comprises guiding the recirculated liquid heavy phase radially outwards under said distributor.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein step d) comprises guiding the separated liquid heavy phase to the sludge space at a radial position that is at a radial outer edge of the distributor (“The said sludge recirculation channels in the rotor preferably open at the radially outermost parts of the separation chamber”, col. 3 lines 14-26, Krook).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein step d) comprises recirculating separated liquid heavy phase to a radial inner position of the sludge space (“[f]urther pipes 29 extend radially inward from the radially outermost parts of the separation chamber”, col. 4 lines 20-21, Krook).
Claims 3, 6, 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Thylefors (U.S. Patent No. 3,640,452).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses further comprising an inlet pipe (central pipe 11, Figure) arranged for introducing said liquid feed mixture to said inlet (bottom end of inlet chamber 10, Figure), but does not disclose wherein said conduit system comprises a recirculation inlet pipe arranged within said inlet pipe.
Thylefors discloses a centrifugal separator wherein said conduit system comprises a recirculation inlet pipe (pipeline 19, Figure) arranged within said inlet pipe (supply pipe 10, 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the recirculation inlet pipe configuration of Thylefors for the purpose of returning sludge outwardly to the vicinity of the nozzles (col. 2 lines 32-35, Thylefors).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses further comprising an inlet pipe (central pipe 11, Figure) arranged for introducing said liquid feed mixture to said inlet (bottom end of inlet chamber 10, Figure), wherein said recirculation inlet pipe (pipe 31, Figure) extends to said at least one channel (channels 30, Figure) arranged axially below the distributor, but does not disclose wherein the recirculation inlet pipe arranged within said inlet pipe.
Thylefors discloses a centrifugal separator wherein said conduit system comprises a recirculation inlet pipe (pipeline 19, Figure) arranged within said inlet pipe (supply pipe 10, 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the recirculation inlet pipe configuration of Thylefors for the purpose of returning sludge outwardly to the vicinity of the nozzles (col. 2 lines 32-35, Thylefors).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey does not disclose wherein said conduit connecting the first outlet for the liquid heavy phase with said recirculation inlet comprising a valve arranged for determining the amount of separated liquid heavy phase being recirculated to said recirculation inlet.
Thylefors discloses wherein said conduit (pipeline 19, Figure) connecting the first outlet for the liquid heavy phase with said recirculation inlet comprising a valve (controllable valve 18, Figure) arranged for determining the amount of separated liquid heavy phase being recirculated to said recirculation inlet. 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the valve as taught by Thylefors for the purpose of directing part of the sludge back into the centrifuge (col. 2 lines 20-35, Thylefors).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses wherein the centrifugal separator comprises an inlet pipe (central pipe 11, Figure, Krook) arranged for introducing said liquid feed mixture to said inlet, but does not disclose wherein said recirculation is performed via a recirculation inlet pipe arranged within said inlet pipe.
Thylefors discloses a centrifugal separator wherein said recirculation is performed via a recirculation inlet pipe (pipeline 19, Figure) arranged within said inlet pipe (supply pipe 10, 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 method of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the recirculation inlet pipe configuration of Thylefors for the purpose of returning sludge outwardly to the vicinity of the nozzles (col. 2 lines 32-35, Thylefors).
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Häggmark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,186,687, hereinafter Häggmark).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey does not explicitly disclose wherein the sludge outlets are arranged for intermittent discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture.
Häggmark discloses a centrifugal separator wherein the sludge outlets are arranged for intermittent discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture (col. 4 lines 54-57). 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the intermittent discharge of sludge as taught by Häggmark for the purpose of removal of solids and minimizing loss of separated liquid phase.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey discloses a set of radial outlets (outlets 11, Fig. 1, Kaldewey) arranged at the outer periphery of the centrifuge rotor, but does not explicitly disclose wherein step e) comprises intermittently ejecting a separated solid phase.
Häggmark discloses a centrifugal separator wherein the sludge outlets are arranged for intermittent discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture (col. 4 lines 54-57). 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 method of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the intermittent discharge of sludge as taught by Häggmark for the purpose of removal of solids and minimizing loss of separated liquid phase.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 3802305 (Klapper et al., hereinafter Klapper).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey does not disclose wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises a throttle valve arranged for throttling the separated liquid heavy phase, wherein said throttle valve is arranged upstream of the first outlet for the heavy phase.
Klapper discloses a centrifugal separator further comprises a nozzle (7, Fig. 1) arranged for throttling the separated liquid heavy phase, wherein said throttle valve is arranged upstream of the first outlet (concentrate outlet 10, Fig. 1) for the heavy phase (nozzle 7 acts as a flow control member upstream of the first outlet for the heavy phase). 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey with the throttle valve/nozzle of Klapper for the purpose of discharging a partial flow of concentrate out of the centrifuge drum and back into the inlet of the centrifuge drum (page 2 last paragraph – page 3 first paragraph of machine translation, Klapper).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, and further in view of Häggmark, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of EP 2170520 (Peltokoski).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Krook, Kaldewey, and Häggmark does not disclose wherein step e) further comprises introducing displacement liquid to the centrifuge rotor via the conduit system for recirculating separated liquid heavy phase before ejecting said separated solid phase.
Peltokoski discloses a centrifugal separator comprising introducing displacement liquid to the centrifuge rotor (para. [0013]). 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 method of the combination of Krook, Kaldewey, and Häggmark with the introducing displacement liquid step as taught by Peltokoski, for the purpose of preventing discharging of the light liquid from the bowl (para. [0013], Peltokoski). Since Krook already teaches a conduit system that carries separated heavy phase back into the rotor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the existing recirculation path to introduce the displace liquid taught by Peltokoski.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of EP 2799146 (Oldebäck et al., hereinafter Oldebäck).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Krook and Kaldewey does not expressly disclose wherein the liquid feed mixture is an oily mixture and the liquid heavy phase is an aqueous phase.
Oldebäck discloses a centrifugal separator wherein the liquid feed mixture is an oily mixture and the liquid heavy phase is an aqueous phase (para. [0011]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the method of the combination of Krook and Kaldewey to the feed mixture as taught by Oldebäck for the purpose of separating solid particles, such as sludge, from a liquid mixture and further transporting separated solid particles out of the separator (para. [0005], Oldebäck).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krook in view of Kaldewey, and further in view of Thylefors, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Häggmark.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Krook, Kaldewey, and Thylefors does not explicitly disclose wherein the sludge outlets are arranged for intermittent discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture.
Häggmark discloses a centrifugal separator wherein the sludge outlets are arranged for intermittent discharge of sludge separated from said liquid feed mixture (col. 4 lines 54-57). 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Krook Kaldewey, and Thylefors with the intermittent discharge of sludge as taught by Häggmark for the purpose of removal of solids and minimizing loss of separated liquid phase.
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
Prosecution Insights