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 1 September 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 acceptable.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0166803, hereinafter Schulz) in view of Gronnegaard et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,247,133, hereinafter Gronnegaard).
Regarding claim 1, Schulz discloses a centrifugal separator comprising: a separator bowl (drum shell 1, Fig. 9) delimiting therein a separation space and being configured to rotate about a rotational axis (V, Fig. 9); nozzle members (discharge nozzles 2, Fig. 9) arranged peripherally at the separator bowl, wherein each of the nozzle members forms a nozzle outlet (discharge opening 10, Fig. 1b) providing a passage from the separation space to a space outside the separator bowl; a protective member (wear protection element 12, Fig. 1b) arranged downstream of each of the nozzle outlets at an outer periphery of the separator bowl, but does not expressly teach wherein each of the nozzle members respectively secures the protective member in relation to the separator bowl, at least in one circumferential direction of the separator bowl.
Gronnegaard discloses analogous art related to wear reinforcement for an opening, wherein each of the nozzle members (corresponding to inlet openings 5, Fig. 1) respectively secures the protective member (wear reinforcement member 8, Fig. 3) in relation to the separator bowl (core body 1, Fig. 1), at least in one circumferential direction of the separator bowl (“prevents the wear reinforcement member from moving tangentially forwards in the direction of rotation and radially out of the core body”, Abstract). Since Gronnegaard teaches structural retention of a wear reinforcement member against tangential movement, i.e., movement in the circumferential direction, by way of abutment surfaces that prevent relative motion in the direction of rotation (Abstract, Gronnegaard), 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 the centrifugal separator of Schulz and its teaching of placement of wear protection elements adjacent to nozzle outlets with the concept of abutment retention of a wear member in a tangential/circumferential direction as taught by Gronnegaard for the purpose of preventing ejection due to rotation (Abstract, Gronnegaard).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein each of the nozzle members (corresponding to inlet openings 5, Fig. 1, Gronnegaard) respectively adjoins the protective member (wear reinforcement member 8, Fig. 3, Gronnegaard) in a radial direction of the separator bowl (see e.g., Fig. 4, Gronnegaard).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein a surface of the protective member facing radially inwardly towards a body of the separator bowl is arranged at an angle within a range of 0 – 50 degrees in relation to a tangent of the outer peripheral of the separator bowl at a respective of the nozzle members, the angle having a vertex thereof at the respective nozzle member (channel 13 of the wear protection element can completely or in sections be oriented parallel or at an angle with respect to the discharge opening 10. The angle may be smaller than 30° and may even be smaller than 20°, para. [0053], Fig. 1b, Schulz).
Regarding claims 5, 18, and 19, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the protective member (wear protection element 12, Fig. 1b) is arranged in a slot (recess 11, Fig. 1b) extending from a respective of the nozzle members into a body of the separator bowl (drum shell 1, Fig. 1b, para. [0048], Schulz).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the nozzle outlet (discharge opening 10, Fig. 1b, Schulz) is arranged inside the outer periphery of the separator bowl (drum shell 1, Fig. 1b, para. [0048], Schulz).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the protective member comprise a sheet (wear protection elements 12 are constructed as plate-type bodies, para. [0049], Schulz) arranged along the outer periphery of the separator bowl.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the protective member is secured in a radial direction of the separator bowl with at least two fastening elements (screws 14, Fig. 1a, Schulz) at the outer periphery of the separator bowl.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the nozzle outlet (discharge opening 10, Fig. 1b, Schulz) is arranged at least partially outside the outer periphery of the separator bowl and radially outside the protective member (see e.g., Fig. 1b, Schulz).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schulz and Gronnegaard discloses wherein the protective member (wear protection elements 12, Fig. 1a, Schulz) extends outside a respective of the nozzle members (discharge nozzles 2, Fig. 1a, Schulz) in an axial direction of the separator bowl (drum shell 1, Fig. 1a, Schulz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 12-16, and 20 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, since the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the other claimed structural elements, the protective member comprising a wedge-shaped body, a vertex end portion of the wedge-shaped body being configured to be arranged at a respective of the nozzle members and an opposite wide end portion of the wedge-shaped body being configured to be arranged at a distance from the respective nozzle member.
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