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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 17 NOVEMBER 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 NOVEMBER 2025.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 11-20
Withdrawn Claims: 1-10
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13, “at least one inlet pipe” in line 1 of the claim should read “the at least one inlet pipe”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (US Patent No. 20040118752 A1) hereinafter Simon in view of Kaplar et al (UK Patent Application No. GB 2177951 A) hereinafter Kaplar.
Regarding Claim 11, Simon teaches a separator that provides a convergent conical flow path for a mixture introduced into a separator including mixtures of gases (i.e., a method of separating components of a mixture of gas using a separator, the method comprising; Abstract, Paragraph 0005)
with an inner circumferential side wall (Fig. 4, #58) that defines one or more inlet ports (Fig. 4, #60) for receiving a mixture from its source (i.e., channeling the mixture into an inlet manifold of the separator; Paragraph 0046)
where the mixture initially flows through a converging funnel-like chamber and forms a convergent spiraling flow (i.e., forming the mixture into a spiraling flow within the inlet manifold; Paragraph 0006)
and then the convergent spiraling flow then transitions into a throat section (Fig. 3, #36; i.e., channeling the mixture from the inlet manifold to a throat of the separator)
with a generally uniform radius and the mixture continues to spiral and separate further (Paragraph 0006) and within the throat section, the heavier components of the mixture tend to congregate toward the outer portions of the spiraling flow and the lighter components of the mixture tend to congregate in a generally cylindrical inner spiraling flow area within the outer spiraling flow of heavier components (i.e., separating heavy species of the mixture from light species of the mixture within the throat; Paragraph 0006),
wherein the spiraling flow then transitions to a divergent funnel-like chamber, or diffuser chamber, (i.e., outlet manifold including a cone-shaped inlet; Fig. 2, #26; Paragraph 0006) where some portion of the heavier components of the mixture are exhausted from the separator (i.e., channeling a flow of the heavy species from the throat to an outlet manifold of the separator; Paragraph 0006), wherein within the diffuser chamber (Fig. 5, #26) an exhaust cone or diffuser cone (i.e., cone-shaped head; Fig. 5, #30) defines a diffuser surface (i.e., wherein the cone- shaped head is positioned within the cone-shaped inlet; Paragraph 0009) with one or more outlet ports (i.e., outlet manifold; Fig. 3, #118; Paragraph 0066) with an outlet valve (Fig. 3) and is moveable relative to the throat section by means of a screw drive motor (i.e., throttle shaft and the shaft extends through the bowl- shaped outlet; Fig. 5, #124; Paragraph 0067),
wherein the diffuser cone (Fig. 5, #30) is in some instances movably mounted which allows the diffuser channel (Fig. 5, #102) to be changed via a controller (Fig. 6, #130) and sensors (Fig. 6, #128a/b/c) in connection to the screw drive motor (Fig. 6, #124) to determine if separation is improved and then optimize separation (i.e., controlling the flow of the heavy species through the outlet valve and the flow of the mixture through the separator using the bowl-shaped outlet, the cone-shaped inlet, and the cone- shaped head, wherein the bowl-shaped outlet, the cone-shaped inlet, and the cone-shaped head are sized and shaped to control the flow of the heavy species through the outlet valve and the flow of the mixture through the separator; Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Simon does not teach a bowl-shaped outlet.
However, Kaplar teaches a widened hollow surface (i.e., a bowl-shaped outlet; Fig. 10, #24) up to the outflow orifice (Fig. 10, #21) for the purpose of discharging a carrier phase with a higher purity (Page 5, Lines 40-42).
Kaplar is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the separation of single phases of polyphase streaming media (Page 1, Lines 5-12) wherein Kaplar aims to eliminate the deficiency of cyclones that are unable to separate a pure-gas or liquid phase (Page 1, Lines 39-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the outlet as taught by Simon to be a widened hollow shape as taught by Kaplar because the widened hollow shape would discharge a carrier phase with greater purity.
Regarding Claim 12, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 11. Simon further teaches that the inlet ports may be disposed at an angle or tangentially with the inner side wall to help facilitate a high velocity circular flow within the inlet plenum (i.e., wherein forming the mixture into a spiraling flow within the inlet manifold at least partially comprises channeling the mixture into the at least one inlet pipe; Paragraph 0046).
Kaplar further teaches a concentric inflow channel (i.e., wherein the inlet manifold comprises at least one inlet pipe formed in a spiral shape; Fig. 8, #5) that communicates with the inflow orifice (i.e., and wherein forming the mixture of gas into a spiraling flow within the inlet manifold at least partially comprises channeling the mixture of gas into the at least one inlet pipe; Fig. 8, #7) for the purpose of reducing inflow losses and assuring practically full symmetry of flow (Page 2, Lines 15-18) which saves energy and allows for better control of the separation process (Page 3, Lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator made obvious by Simon in view of Kaplar with the concentric inflow channel in direct communication with the conical chamber as taught by Kaplar because the changes would improve the energy efficiency and the control of the separation process.
Regarding Claim 13, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 12. Simon further teaches that an embodiment of the separator (Fig. 2, #10) is fed with four corresponding pipes (i.e., wherein the at least one inlet pipe comprises two inlet pipes shaped in a spiral shape; Fig. 2, #74; Paragraph 0050).
Regarding Claim 14, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 11. Simon further teaches an inner circumferential side wall (wherein the inlet manifold comprises an inlet plate; Fig. 4, #58) that defines one or more inlet ports (wherein the inlet plate defines at least one inlet channel; Paragraph 0046).
Kaplar further teaches a concentric inflow channel (i.e., at least one inlet channel shaped in a spiral shape; Fig. 8, #5) that communicates with the inflow orifice (i.e., and wherein forming the mixture of gas into a spiraling flow within the inlet manifold at least partially comprises channeling the mixture of gas into the at least one inlet channel; Fig. 8, #7).
Regarding Claim 15, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 14. Simon further teaches an outer continuous conical side wall (Fig. 3, #78) that defines the outside wall of the conical inlet chamber (i.e., wherein the inlet manifold comprises a conical chamber; Fig. 3, #20) the high velocity circular flow of the mixture that is begun in the second annular channel (Fig. 3, #68) flows into the inlet portion (Fig. 3, #22) of the inlet chamber (i.e., defining a continuous inner conical side wall; Fig. 3, #20) to form a convergent spiraling flow (Fig. 3, #32, 34) therein (i.e., and wherein forming the mixture into a spiraling flow within the inlet manifold at least partially comprises channeling the mixture of gas into the conical chamber; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 16, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 15. Simon further teaches that the flow path of the mixture through the separator should be smooth to provide a non-turbulent laminar-like flow of the mixture (i.e., wherein the at least one inlet channel and the continuous inner conical side wall create a smooth transition from the inlet plate to the conical chamber; Paragraph 0051).
Kaplar further teaches a concentric inflow channel (Fig. 8, #5) that communicates with the inflow orifice (i.e., wherein the continuous inner conical sidewall abuts the at least one inlet channel; Fig. 8, #7).
Regarding Claim 17, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 15. Simon further teaches that a throat section (Fig. 3, #36) defining a substantially cylindrical chamber is interposed between the inlet chamber (Fig. 3, #20) and the diffuser chamber (I.e., wherein the continuous inner conical side wall abuts the throat; Fig. 3, #26; Paragraph 0041). As above, Simon also teaches that the flow path of the mixture through the separator should be smooth to provide a non-turbulent laminar-like flow of the mixture (i.e., wherein the at least one inlet channel and the throat create a smooth transition from the conical chamber to the throat; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 18, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 15. Simon further teaches an exit channel (Fig. 3, #28) disposed within the inlet chamber (i.e., an outlet pipe disposed along an axis of the throat and the conical chamber; Fig. 3, #20; Paragraph 0043) and a spiraling retrograde flow (Fig. 3, #38) within the throat (Fig. 3, #36) that is primarily composed of lighter components that leaves the separator through the exit channel (i.e., wherein the method further comprises channeling a flow of the lighter species from the throat to the outlet pipe; Fig. 3, #28).
Regarding Claim 19, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 11. Simon further teaches that the diffuser cone (Fig. 5, #30) is in some instances movably mounted which allows the diffuser channel (Fig. 5, #102) to be changed via a controller (Fig. 6, #130) and sensors (Fig. 6, #128a/b/c) in connection to the screw drive motor (Fig. 6, #124) to determine if separation is improved and then optimize separation (i.e., wherein controlling the flow of the heavier species through the outlet valve and the flow of the mixture of gas through the separator using the bowl-shaped outlet comprises moving the cone-shaped head within the cone-shaped inlet; Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Regarding Claim 20, Simon in view of Kaplar makes obvious the method of claim 19. Simon in view of Kaplar does not explicitly teach that moving the cone-shaped head towards the cone-shaped inlet reduces the flow of heavier species out of the separator.
However, Simon teaches that the diffuser cone (Fig. 5, #30) may be longitudinally adjusted to change the pressure within the throat (Fig. 5, #36) and the exit channel (Fig. 3, #28) by increasing or decreasing the annular opening (Fig. 5, #106) around the exit cone (Fig. 5, #30) and between the throat (Fig. 5, #36) and the conical exhaust channel (Fig. 5, #102) and thereby affect the retrograde flow of lighter species out of the exit channel (Fig. 3, #28; Paragraph 0063). Simon describes adjusting the diffuser cone to affect the flow of lighter species rather than how the movement affects the flow of the heavier species. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See MPEP 2112.02). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary art in the skill to move the cone-shaped diffuser towards the diffusion chamber inlet to reduce the heavy species flow out of the separator because the movement would reduce the conical exhaust channel size, which is where the heavy species is being directed, and thus would inherently reduce the flow of the heavy species out of the separator in the direction of the conical exhaust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772