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 4 August 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 feature of the upper sludge space angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is recites the limitation "the sludge outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If said term refers to the “at least one sludge outlet” previously recited in claim 1, upon which said claim depends, then consistent terminology should be used.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the separation surface" and “the separation discs” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is recites the limitation "the sludge outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If said term refers to the “at least one sludge outlet” previously recited in claim 1, upon which said claim depends, then consistent terminology should be used.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0245175, hereinafter Whittington).
Regarding claim 1, Whittington discloses a centrifugal separator (centrifuge 100, Fig. 1B) for separating at least one liquid phase and a solids phase from a liquid feed mixture, comprising: a frame (11, Fig. 1A); a drive member (motor 39, Fig. 1A); and a rotating part (centrifuge 100, Fig. 1B), wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the rotating part in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation, wherein the rotating part comprises a centrifuge bowl (bowl portion 101, Fig. 1B) enclosing a separation space (interior space 110, Fig. 1B) and a sludge space (solids holding space 147, Fig. 1B), wherein the separation space comprises a stack (disc stack 118, Fig. 1B) of separation discs (140, Fig. 1B) arranged coaxially around the axis of rotation and wherein said sludge space is arranged radially outside said stack of separation discs; wherein the centrifuge bowl further comprises an inlet (feed stream inlet 10, Fig. 1B) for receiving the liquid feed mixture, at least one liquid outlet (first product stream outlet 20, second product stream outlet 30, Fig. 1B) for a separated liquid phase, and at least one sludge outlet (discharge passageway 40, Fig. 1B) for a separated solids phase arranged at a periphery of the centrifuge bowl, wherein an upper inner surface of the sludge space (radially extending interior surface of the sidewall portion 109, Fig. 1B) that extends to the at least one sludge outlet forms an upper sludge space angle p (ƟB, Fig. 1B) relative the axis of rotation as seen in an axial plane, wherein the upper inner surface of the sludge space (radially extending interior surface of the sidewall portion 109, Fig. 1B) extends radially at least half a radial distance from the at least one sludge outlet (discharge passageway 40, Fig. 1B) to a radial outer edge of the stack of separation discs (disc stack 118, Fig. 1B), but does not specifically disclose wherein the upper sludge space angle p is more than 5 degrees but less than 15 degrees.
However, Whittington discloses wherein the upper sludge space angle p (ƟB, Fig. 1B) is “10 to 60 degrees, or even from 15 to 40 degrees” (para. [0051]). Whittington thus broadly discloses angles as low as 10 degrees for the upper inner surface of the sludge space. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an angle from the lower portion of the range disclosed by Whittington, specifically in the range of 10 to 15 degrees, as Whittington expressly discloses that angles as low as 10 degrees are suitable for the upper inner surface of the sludge space. Furthermore, the motivation to reduce the upper inner surface angle below 15 degrees may be to maximize the number of separation discs that can be fitted within the centrifuge bowl, which is a widely recognized design goal in disc stack centrifuges.
Regarding claim 2, Whittington does not specifically disclose wherein the upper sludge space angle p is between 11-14 degrees. However, Whittington discloses wherein the upper sludge space angle p (ƟB, Fig. 1B) is “10 to 60 degrees, or even from 15 to 40 degrees” (para. [0051]). Whittington thus broadly discloses angles as low as 10 degrees for the upper inner surface of the sludge space. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, supra; In re Woodruff, supra. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an angle from the lower portion of the range disclosed by Whittington, specifically in the range of 11 to 14 degrees, as Whittington expressly discloses that angles as low as 10 degrees are suitable for the upper inner surface of the sludge space.
Regarding claim 3, Whittington does not specifically disclose wherein the upper sludge space angle p is about 13 degrees. However, Whittington discloses wherein the upper sludge space angle p (ƟB, Fig. 1B) is “10 to 60 degrees, or even from 15 to 40 degrees” (para. [0051]). Whittington thus broadly discloses angles as low as 10 degrees for the upper inner surface of the sludge space. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, supra; In re Woodruff, supra. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an angle from the lower portion of the range disclosed by Whittington, specifically in the range of about 13 degrees, as Whittington expressly discloses that angles as low as 10 degrees are suitable for the upper inner surface of the sludge space.
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 17, Whittington discloses wherein the upper inner surface of the sludge space extends radially all the way from the at least one sludge outlet to a radial outer edge of the stack of separation discs (in the embodiment where “outside diameter dH is 98.5% or less of dB, while at the same time the outside diameter dH is 100% or greater of dF”, para. [0063], the radially extending interior surface of the sidewall portion 109 would necessarily extend at least as far radially inward as dH, since the separating disk 146 is described as “substantially conforming to the shape of the interior surface 105 of bowl top 103”, para. [0062], which would result in the radially extending interior surface of the sidewall portion 109 to extend all the way from dB to dF, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claims 5, 18, 19, and 20, Whittington discloses wherein the upper inner surface of the sludge space (radially extending interior surface of the sidewall portion 109, Fig. 1B) has a straight cross-section without any change in direction, as seen in an axial plane (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Whittington discloses wherein a lower inner surface of the sludge space (interior surface 106 of sidewall portion 112) that extends to the sludge outlet (discharge passageway 40, Fig. 1B) forms a lower sludge space angle γ (ƟG, Fig. 1) relative to the axis of rotation as seen in an axial plane, and wherein the lower sludge space angle γ is 15 degrees or more (15 to 40 degrees relative to the datum 120, which is parallel to axis 12, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Whittington discloses wherein the separating surface of the separation discs in the stack of separation discs forms an angle α (ƟF, Fig. 1B) with the axis of rotation as seen in an axial plane, but does not specifically wherein the angle α is between 32-38 degrees.
However, Whittington discloses wherein the angle α (ƟF, Fig. 1B) “can be from 30 to 55 degrees, or even from 35 to 45 degrees” (para. [0059]). The claimed range of 32-38 degrees falls entirely within Whittington’s broadly disclosed range of 30-55 degrees for ƟF. It has been held that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It has also been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a disc surface angel from the lower portion of Whittington’s preferred range of 35-45 degrees, such as 35-38 degrees, which would fall within the claimed 32-38 degree range, for the purpose of optimization of the frustoconical disc angle, which is a well-known routine design consideration for disc stack centrifuges.
Regarding claim 9, Whittington discloses wherein the at least one liquid outlet for a separated liquid phase comprises a first liquid outlet (second product stream outlet 30, Fig. 1B) for a liquid heavy phase and a second liquid outlet (first product stream outlet 20, Fig. 1B) for a liquid light phase (para. [0054] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Whittington discloses wherein the sludge outlet is in the form of a set of intermittently openable outlets (sliding piston 115 and discharge passageway 40, Fig. 1B, para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Whittington discloses a method of separating a solids phase and at least one liquid phase from a liquid feed mixture, comprising the steps of: a) introducing the liquid feed mixture into the centrifugal separator according to claim 1; b) discharging a separated solids phase from said centrifugal separator; and c) discharging at least one separated liquid phase from said centrifugal separator (para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Whittington discloses wherein step b) comprises intermittently ejecting the separated solids phase through a set of intermittently openable outlets (sliding piston 115 and discharge passageway 40, Fig. 1B, para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Whittington discloses wherein the at least one separated liquid phase is a liquid light phase and a liquid heavy phase (para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Whittington discloses wherein the liquid feed mixture comprises microbial cells that are separated in said solids phase (feed stream may be “protein (yeast) paste”, para. [0047]; yeast cells are microorganisms).
Regarding claim 15, Whittington discloses wherein the separating surface of the separation discs in the stack of separation discs forms an angle α (ƟF, Fig. 1B) with the axis of rotation as seen in an axial plane, but does not specifically wherein the angle α is about 35 degrees.
However, Whittington discloses wherein the angle α (ƟF, Fig. 1B) “can be from 30 to 55 degrees, or even from 35 to 45 degrees” (para. [0059]). The claimed range of about 35 degrees falls entirely within Whittington’s broadly disclosed range of 30-55 degrees for ƟF. It has been held that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, supra. It has also been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, supra; In re Woodruff, supra. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a disc surface angel from the lower portion of Whittington’s preferred range of 35-45 degrees, such as about 35 degrees, which would fall within the claimed 32-38 degree range, for the purpose of optimization of the frustoconical disc angle, which is a well-known routine design consideration for disc stack centrifuges.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington in view of Nilsson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0262843, hereinafter Nilsson).
Regarding claim 8, Whittington does not disclose wherein the stack of separation discs comprises more than 200 separation discs.
Nilsson discloses analogous art related to disc stack centrifuges, wherein the stack of separation discs comprises more than 200 separation discs (Abstract). 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 Whittington with the number of discs in the stack of separation discs taught by Nilsson for the purpose of using a high flow rate while retaining a high separation capacity (para. [0007], Nilsson).
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