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 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the through holes in Eliasson that extend though the housing have straight axial walls, i.e. the ‘smaller cross sectional area’ as defined by the Examiner on the annotated Fig. 7” (page 9, Remarks), and that Eliasson does not teach the recited funnel structure. The examiner respectively disagrees. The downwardly depending portion 80 is part of the partition wall 64, which is the end wall of the housing, and the apertures 114 extend through portion 80. Eliasson states that the “downwardly depending portions 80 defined by the partition wall 64” (para. [0025]), and that “the downwardly depending portion 80 of the partition wall 64 defines apertures 114 extending there through” (para. [0032]). Portion 80 is therefore part of wall 64 and a through hole passing through portion 80 passes through wall 64. The narrower cross-section area and the larger cross-sectional area of the through hole are labeled in annotated Fig. 7 as shown in the rejections below. The rejection over Eliasson is therefor still deemed valid and is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 24 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 title of the invention is 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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eliasson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0249479).
Regarding claim 1, Eliasson discloses a centrifugal separator (50, Fig. 2) for separating a liquid phase from a crankcase gas, the centrifugal separator comprising: a housing (52, Fig. 2); a separation chamber (54, Fig. 2) inside the housing; a rotor shaft (70, Fig. 2) extending through the separation chamber in an axial direction, a rotor (56, Fig. 2) for separating the liquid phase arranged inside the separation chamber, and the rotor being connected to the rotor shaft; a bearing (62, Fig. 2) arranged at an end portion of the rotor shaft; an inlet (86, Fig. 2) for the crankcase gas; a gas outlet (92, Fig. 2) from the separation chamber for separated gas; and a liquid outlet (apertures 114, Fig. 5) from the separation chamber for the separated liquid phase, wherein the rotor shaft is journalled in the housing via the bearing, wherein the end portion of the rotor shaft extends through the bearing outside the separation chamber (see Fig. 2), wherein a ring-shaped sealing gap (see annotated Fig. 5 below) is formed between the housing and a member (pump wheel 74, Fig. 2) connected to the rotor shaft (70, Fig. 2) outside the separation chamber, and wherein the liquid outlet (apertures 114, Fig. 5) is arranged, seen in relation to the axial direction, radially outside the bearing (62, Fig. 5) and radially inside a radially outer end of the ring-shaped sealing gap, and wherein the liquid outlet comprises a number of through holes (apertures 114, Fig. 5) extending through the housing (partition wall 64 is considered an end wall of housing 52, Fig. 2) and being arranged circumferentially around the bearing (62, Fig. 2), and at least one of the number of through holes has a form of a funnel with a narrower cross-sectional area closer to the separation chamber and a larger cross-sectional area further from the separation chamber (54, Fig. 2) with respect to the narrower cross-sectional area (see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
651
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6, Eliasson discloses wherein a ring-shaped protrusion (downwardly depending portion 80, Fig. 2) is provided on the housing (partition wall 64 is considered an end wall of housing 52, Fig. 2), an axial surface of the ring-shaped protrusion forming one surface defining the ring-shaped sealing gap and a surface of the member (pump wheel 74, Fig. 2) forming an opposite surface defining the ring-shaped sealing gap (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Eliasson discloses wherein the liquid outlet (apertures 114, Fig. 5) is arranged to exit in the ring-shaped protrusion (downwardly depending portion 80, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Eliasson discloses wherein the ring-shaped sealing gap forms a labyrinth seal (claim 18).
Regarding claim 9, Eliasson discloses a driving chamber (drainage chamber 66, Fig. 2) and a turbine wheel (turbine 72, Fig. 2) arranged in the driving chamber and connected to the end portion of the rotor shaft (70, Fig. 2), wherein the sealing gap is provided in the driving chamber and is configured to seal the driving chamber from the separation chamber (para. [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Eliasson discloses wherein the separator rotor comprises a stack of separation discs (40, Fig. 1), each separation disc having a truncated conical shape.
Regarding claim 11, Eliasson discloses wherein a ridge (top end of bearing sleeve 116, Fig. 7) extends around the bearing (62, Fig. 7) inside the separation chamber, radially between the bearing and the liquid outlet (apertures 114, Fig. 5), and wherein the ridge extends in the axial direction from the bearing into the separation chamber (54, Fig. 7).
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 2, 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson.
Regarding claim 2, Eliasson does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid outlet is arranged within a range of 0-20 mm radially outside a radially outer ring surface of the bearing. Eliasson teaches apertures 114 extending through the partition wall for separated oil drainage. Fig. 5 and 6 show apertures 114 immediately adjacent to and radially outside the bearing outer 78, i.e., close to the radially outer ring surface of bearing 62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the liquid outlet/apertures within a short radial distance from the outer race of the bearing, such as 0-20 mm, because Eliasson teaches positioning the apertures near the outer race of the bearing to drain separated oil from the separation chamber to the drainage chamber, and the particular radial spacing would have been a matter of routine design optimization. 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.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (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).
Regarding claim 5, Eliasson does not explicitly teach wherein each of the number of through holes has a substantially circular or oval cross section. However, Eliasson teaches apertures 114 extending though the partition wall 64, and such holes would be machined or drilled through the wall, which are conventionally circular in cross section, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided circular liquid outlet holes as a matter of design choice. Furthermore, the specific cross section shape of the liquid outlet is a matter of routine design choice. It has been held that changes in shape between the prior art and the claimed invention is considered a matter of obvious design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP § 2144.
Regarding claim 12, Eliasson does not expressly disclose wherein the ridge has a height within a range of 1-5 mm. However, selecting an exact height of the ridge such as a height within 1-5 mm would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization/design choice to provide a sufficient barrier height for drainage around the bearing. 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.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (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).
Regarding claim 18, Eliasson discloses wherein a ring-shaped protrusion (downwardly depending portion 80, Fig. 2) is provided on the housing (partition wall 64 is considered an end wall of housing 52, Fig. 2), an axial surface of the ring-shaped protrusion forming one surface defining the ring-shaped sealing gap and a surface of the member (pump wheel 74, Fig. 2) forming an opposite surface defining the ring-shaped sealing gap (see Fig. 2).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson in view of Mackel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,315,203, herein after Mackel).
Regarding claim 21, Eliasson discloses wherein the housing includes an end wall including a top surface and a bottom surface (partition wall 64 is considered an end wall of housing 52, Fig. 2), the number of through holes (apertures 114, Fig. 5 and 6) extending through the end wall and arranged circumferentially around the bearing 62, but does not disclose the at least one of the number of through holes with the form of the funnel is defined by a continuous sidewall continuously tapering outward from a narrower opening at the top surface to a wider opening at the bottom surface facing away from the separation chamber.
Mackel discloses an outlet duct (7, Fig. 1) for discharging separated material from a centrifuge drum, having an entry opening (8, Fig. 1) and an exit opening (10, Fig. 1), wherein the duct diameter increases from the entry opening 8 up to the exit opening 10 (col. 2 lines 31-35), and the duct continuously opens up in a conical manner (col. 3 lines 34-64). The duct is thus defined by a continuous sidewall continuously tapering outward from a narrower opening opening to a wider opening. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the apertures of Eliasson as continuously widening ducts as taught by Mackel, with the entry opening narrower at the top surface facing the separation chamber and the exit opening wider at the bottom surface facing away from it, for the purpose of reduced blocking tendency (col. 1 lines 42-45, col. 3 lines 54-64, Mackel).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson in view of Mackel as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Örtegren et al. (WO 2016/198274, hereinafter Örtegren).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Eliasson and Mackel does not disclose wherein the top surface of the end wall comprises recesses arranged radially outside each of the number of through holes and configured to guide separated liquid to the liquid outlet.
Örtegren discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, wherein the top surface of the end wall (bottom wall of housing 4, Fig. 1) comprises recesses (see annotated Fig. 3) arranged radially outside each of the number of through holes (liquid passage 36 and/or 30, Fig. 2 and 3) and configured to guide separated liquid to the liquid outlet (10, 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 centrifugal separator of the combination of Eliasson and Mackel with the recesses as taught by Örtegren for the purpose of fitting together a number of separate parts to make the housing 4 (para. [0019], Örtegren) and to accommodate a second circular flange 42 to guide the liquid through passage 30 and check valve 28 (para. [0026]-[0032], Örtegren).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the ridge comprises at least one opening and in combination with the other claimed structural features.
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
