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 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 1-37 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 16, 17 and 31, a “set” has been defined in the application as “one or more” (paragraph 37). It is unclear how only one aperture can be “disposed about” a separations chamber portion or head space chamber. Here, “disposed about” is taken to mean “disposed around” and one having ordinary skill in the art will understand that it takes more than a single aperture to be disposed about or around part of the separator. To overcome this rejection, “two or more apertures” should be used, or “disposed on” may be used instead of “disposed about.
Claims 1 (lines 13-15) and 16 (lines 19-21) are also indefinite because it is unclear whether the process limitations further limit the claimed structure. This is further confusing because “configured to” is used elsewhere in the claim to clearly indicate that other parts are physically capable of performing a function. Specifically, it is unclear if the vortex “expels” and “conveys” limitations structurally limit the claim. To overcome this rejection, “such that” or “wherein” may be inserted before “the vortex.”
Claims 4 and 19 are indefinite because it is unclear how the downspout sleeve can be “coextensive” with the first set of apertures in an embodiment where the set only includes a single aperture. It is also unclear whether “coextensive” relates to the extending direction of each individual aperture, or the set of apertures.
Claims 3-15, 18-30 and 32-37 are rejected for depending from an indefinite parent claim.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment of a set of apertures including a single aperture must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. This is because it is unclear how the separator can have a single aperture that is disposed about the apparatus (claim 1) or be coextensive with the downspout sleeve (claim 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In a telephone interview (see attached summary), applicant clarified that the claims are intended to indicate that a “set of apertures” is “one or more apertures.” This is assumed for examination, however it is unclear why a “set of apertures” is recited instead of “one or more apertures” other than to confuse a reader because the conventional definition of a set of items is two or more.
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) 1-3, 9-11, 13-18, 24-26 and 28-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shanks et al. (9,879,489).
Shanks et al. ‘489 teach a gas trap residing within a return fluids tank, comprising a cylindrical main body defining a flow path between an upstream inflow aperture (216) on a separations chamber (214) and a downstream gas outlet (260) on a head space chamber, an agitator (230) at an upstream end of the separations chamber, a gas analysis unit connected to the gas outlet, an intermediate aperture (250) that exhausts liquid and solids, an agitator shaft (220), and a shaft motor (225) (see figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, col. 5, line 52 to col. 6, line 27). The agitator has helical interfaces that generate a vortex that exerts horizontal and upwardly vertical motion to the fluid (col. 6, lines 34-60). The speed (RPMs) of the impeller can be regulated to control a volume of fluid in the separation chamber (col. 9, lines 41-47) and cavitation (vacuum bubble formation) can be caused by the agitator (col. 10, lines 27-36).
Regarding claim 32, the vortex, float (120) and liquid outlet will inherently maintain a constant volume of fluid in the separations chamber.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (5,199,509).
Wright ‘509 teaches a gas trap residing within a return fluids tank (74) with a liquid level (72), comprising a cylindrical main body defining a flow path between an upstream inflow aperture (18) on a mixing chamber (24) and a downstream gas outlet (36) on a head space chamber, an agitator (42) at an upstream end of the separations chamber, a gas analysis unit connected to the gas outlet, an intermediate aperture (50) that exhausts liquid and solids, an agitator shaft (30), and a shaft motor (26) (see figures 1-3, col. 3, line 1 to col. 4, line 31). The agitator generates a vortex that exerts horizontal and upwardly vertical motion to the fluid. Cavitation (vacuum bubble formation) can be caused by agitating arms (44) disposed around the drive shaft and two gas outlets are provided (col. 5, lines 7-16). Regarding claims 11 and 26, “off” can be considered to be one of a plurality of operating speeds.
Regarding claim 32, the vortex and liquid outlet will inherently maintain a constant volume of fluid in the separations chamber.
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) 12, 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Shanks et al. ‘489 or Wright ‘509 in view of Seiman et al. (7,957,903).
Any one of Shanks et al. ‘489 or Wright ‘509 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the motor is operable to prevent fluid from entering the flow path. Seiman et al. ‘903 disclose a gas trap for sampling fluid from a well, comprising a means to reverse the flow of gas samples flowing through the trap (see abstract, col. 7, lines 29-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the motor primary references in order to provide “blow back” to unclog the trap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 19-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 gas 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