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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al (US 11358156; hereinafter Tucker) in view of Conrad et al (US 6277278; hereinafter Conrad).
As regarding claim 1, Tucker discloses the claimed invention for a parabolic cyclone chamber for separating, from a stream of gas, particles suspended in the stream of gas while the stream of gas is in motion towards a vacuum source, the parabolic cyclone chamber comprising: a bottom having an opening (about 38 of fig. 7); an upper surface; a curved sidewall connecting the bottom to the upper surface, the curved sidewall having an inflection point; an entry path in a top portion of the cyclone chamber; an exit path extending through the upper surface of the cyclone chamber; and a diverter wall sloping downward from the upper surface of the cyclone chamber toward and below the entry path; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the bottom of the cyclone chamber “A”; a diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber “B”; and a diameter at the inflection point “ID”; wherein the diameter at the inflection point "ID" is below the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B"; wherein the diameter at the inflection point "ID" is less than the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tucker does not disclose wherein the curved sidewall is curved below the inflection point; and wherein the curved sidewall has a convex shape above the inflection point and wherein the curved sidewall has a concave shape below the inflection point. Conrad teaches wherein the curved sidewall is curved below the inflection point; wherein the curved sidewall has a convex shape above the inflection point and wherein the curved sidewall has a concave shape (44 of fig. 2) below the inflection point. Both Tucker and Conrad are directed to cyclonic separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the curved sidewall is curved below the inflection point; and wherein the curved sidewall has a convex shape above the inflection point and wherein the curved sidewall has a concave shape below the inflection point as taught by Conrad in order to improve particle separation efficiency while reducing turbulence, pressure drop, and particle re-entrainment, the configuration stabilizes and accelerates the swirling flow, thereby strengthening centrifugal forces and enabling more effective fine-particle removal.
As regarding claims 2 and 6, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein ratio of the diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:1.9 to about 1:2.7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein ratio of the diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:1.9 to about 1:2.7 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claims 3 and 11, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of the diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to the diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" is in the range of about 1:1.7 to about 1:2.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of the diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to the diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" is in the range of about 1:1.7 to about 1:2.5 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claims 4 and 10, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein ratio of the diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" to the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:0.9 to about 1:1.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein ratio of the diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" to the diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:0.9 to about 1:1.3 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters are critical and unexpected results.
Claim 5 is also rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1 above. However, Tucker does not disclose wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a height "H" measured from the bottom of the cyclone chamber to the upper surface in the range of about 7 inches to about 12 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" in the range of about 2 inches to about 4 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" in the range of about 5 inches to about 9 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the inflection point "ID" in the range of about 4.5 inches to about 8.5 inches; and wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has an inflection point height "IH" measured from the bottom of the cyclone chamber to the inflection point in the range of about 5 inches to about 9 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a height "H" measured from the bottom of the cyclone chamber to the upper surface in the range of about 7 inches to about 12 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" in the range of about 2 inches to about 4 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" in the range of about 5 inches to about 9 inches; wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has a diameter at the inflection point "ID" in the range of about 4.5 inches to about 8.5 inches; and wherein the parabolic cyclone chamber has an inflection point height "IH" measured from the bottom of the cyclone chamber to the inflection point in the range of about 5 inches to about 9 inches in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter, height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters or heights are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 7, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" to inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" is in the range of about 1:0.9 to about 1:1.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of diameter at the inflection point of cyclone chamber "ID" to inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" is in the range of about 1:0.9 to about 1:1.3 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter, height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters or heights are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 8, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" to diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:0.8 to about 1:1.2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" to diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" is in the range of about 1:0.8 to about 1:1.2 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter, height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters or heights are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 9, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" to height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:0.8 to about 1:1.2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of inflection point height of cyclone chamber "IH" to height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:0.8 to about 1:1.2 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen heights are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 12, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:2.5 to about 1:3.7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of diameter of the bottom of the cyclone chamber "A" to height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:2.5 to about 1:3.7 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter, height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters, heights are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 13, Tucker as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Tucker as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:1.1 to about 1:1.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of diameter at the widest portion of cyclone chamber "B" height of the cyclone chamber "H" is in the range of about 1:1.1 to about 1:1.5 in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen diameter, height or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen diameters, heights are critical and unexpected results.
Claims 14-20 are also rejected for the same reasons outlined in claims 1-2, 5 and 7-12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached on (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights