DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, it appears that “had” should be “has”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This refers to “means for actively reinforcing radial separation” in claim 9, which is taken to mean rotating disc or equivalent thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102010047760 A1.
DE ‘760 teaches a device for degassing fluid mixtures, comprising a nozzle for feeding a fluid mixture composed of a plurality of components into a volume defined by a housing (3), wherein the nozzle has a conical annular cap (figure 1) arranged between a conical inner face (13) of the housing and a guide cone (25) and opens at its top into the volume. The housing also includes a tangential fluid feed (11) leading into the gap and a separator tube (35) connected to a discharge line (27) and an inlet opening (37) arranged concentrically with the nozzle opening and spaced therefrom (see paragraphs 24-27). Regarding claim 10, the space between the separator inlet and the nozzle outlet is a demixing chamber. Regarding claims 12 and 13, the fluid mixture is ejected from the nozzle as a twisted jet that causes a reduced pressure inside to cause heavier components to move radially outward. The fluid in the volume during separation will be the same as the fluid feed.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 03/002227 A1.
WO ‘227 teaches a device for degassing fluid mixtures, comprising a nozzle for feeding a fluid mixture composed of a plurality of components into a volume defined by a housing (10), wherein the nozzle has a conical annular cap (figure 1) arranged between a conical inner face (24) of the housing and a guide cone (25) and opens at its top into the volume. The housing also includes a tangential fluid feed (12) connected to a pump (110) and leading into the gap, and a separator tube (32) connected to a discharge line (56) and an inlet opening (60) arranged concentrically with the nozzle opening and spaced therefrom (see figure 1, paragraphs 33-40, 56). Regarding claims 6 and 9, the spacing between the nozzle opening and the inlet opening of the separator can be adjusted, which will result in better radial separation (paragraph 41). Regarding claim 10, the space between the separator inlet and the nozzle outlet is a demixing chamber. Regarding claims 12 and 13, the fluid mixture is ejected from the nozzle as a twisted jet that causes a reduced pressure inside to cause heavier components to move radially outward. The fluid in the volume during separation will be the same as the fluid feed.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of DE ‘760 or WO ‘227 in view of Gomez (2004/0256312 A1).
Any one of DE ‘760 or WO ‘227 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that there is a heating device in the fluid feed, nozzle casing or guide cone. Gomez ‘312 discloses a centrifugal degasser comprising a heating or cooling jacket (35) around a reducing cone (14) or separating cylinder (16) (see abstract, figures, paragraph 46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the separator of the primary references by using the heating jacket of Gomez ‘312 in order to provide an optimal separation temperature that would be required for specific processes.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of DE ‘760 or WO ‘227 in view of Lynch et al. (2011/0245750 A1).
Any one of DE ‘760 or WO ‘227 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that there is an ultrasonic device for generating short-term local pressure gradients in the fluid mixture. Lynch et al. ‘750 disclose a centrifugal degasser comprising an ultrasonic device (20) that causes bubbles in the fluid to move towards the bubble outlet (see figure 1, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the separator of the primary references by using the ultrasonic generator of Lynch et al. ‘750 in order to provide enhanced bubble separation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 and 14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose centrifugal fluid separation arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl