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 § 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broughton U.S. Pub. No. 4834887A, February 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Broughton”) in view of Vingelven et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180250620 A1, September 06, 2018 (hereinafter “Vingelven”).
Regarding claim 1, Broughton discloses a water separator comprising an outer housing in the form of a linear circular exterior pipe (11) having an upstream end, a downstream end, and a central longitudinal axis defined by center line (19) (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 47-53). Broughton discloses a spiral helical vane (21) disposed within the outer housing (11), the vane extending longitudinally through the separator from an upstream location A toward a downstream location B (fig. 1, col.4, lines 51-58; col. 5, lines 10-29). Broughton further discloses that the interior of the helical pitch edge 22 of the vane is secured to and contacts the interior wall (20) of the outer housing (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 52-58). Broughton teaches that the inner spiraling edge (26) defines a free volume (25) extending along center line (19), corresponding to a hollow channel defined by the interior edge of the vane (figs. 1-4A; col. 4, lines 60-67; col. 5, lines 1-8). Broughton additionally discloses flow passages between the vane (21) and the housing wall (20) through which fluid progresses from A to B while being subjected to centrifugal rotation, thereby providing flow channels having a spiral configuration about the central longitudinal axis (fig. 1; figs. 2-4A; col. 5, lines 10-29). However, Broughton discloses a continuous spiraling helical vane (21) and does not explicitly disclose a plurality of circumferential spaced vanes arranged about the central longitudinal axis as recited in the claim.
Vingelven discloses an axial-flow separator/demister including a plurality of swirling elements (vanes) arranged circumferentially about a central hub and central longitudinal axis (figs. 1A, 2-4; paragraphs 0096-0098). Vingelven discloses that the swirling elements (22) have an at least partially spiral configuration around the central hub and define multiple flow passages extending axially through the separator (paragraph 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Broughton by employing a plurality of circumferentially spaced vanes as taught by Vingelven in place of Broughton’s continuous helical vane. Such modification would have provided multiple vane-defined spiral flow channels around a central hollow passage while maintaining the centrifugal separation operation. Hence, substituting one-known swirl generating vane arrangement for another known swirl-generating vane arrangement to achieve the predictable result of imparting rotational flow and enhancing phase separation efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Broughton fails to disclose the inlet end of each of the plurality of vanes is coplanar. However, Vingelven discloses a plurality of circumferentially spaced swirling elements/vanes (22) disposed within the separator, wherein the inlet portions of the swirling elements are positioned at a common upstream location and extend downstream therefrom. (figs. 2-11; paragraphs 0096-0097). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrange the inlet ends of the vanes in a common plane because such an arrangement provides a uniform inlet flow distribution into the vane-defined flow channels.
Regarding claim 3, Broughton fails to disclose the plurality of vanes has a first major surface, the first major surface being arranged at an angle relative to the central longitudinal axis. However, Vingelven discloses swirling elements/vanes (22) arranged around a central hub, wherein the swirling elements are inclined relative to the longitudinal flow direction to impart rotational movement of the fluid stream (figs. 2-11a) The swirling element extend along a spiral path about the central axis and possess major surfaces (front side 22a and back side 22b) arranged at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the separator (fig. 3; paragraph 0102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the vane surface of Broughton with the angular orientation taught by Vingelven because such vane orientation is necessary to impart swirl and centrifugal motion to the fluid stream and generating rotational flow for enhanced moisture separation.
Regarding claim 4, Broughton fails to disclose that the plurality of vanes is identical. However, Vengelven discloses a plurality of swirling elements/vanes (22) that are uniformly distributed about the central axis and are configured to impart substantially identical swirl characteristics to the flowing medium (figs. 1A, 2-10). The corresponding swirling elements (22) are depicted as having the same geometric configuration and orientation about the hub (25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ identical vanes geometries in the separator of Broughton as taught by Vingelven because identical vane structure provides uniform flow distribution, balanced swirl generation, simplified manufacturing, and predictable separator performance.
Regarding claim 5, Broughton fails to discloses that each of the plurality of vanes has a twist angle formed between the inlet end and the outlet end, the twist angle of each of the plurality of vanes being identical. However, Vingelven discloses the downstream end of the swirling element also referred to as the trailing edge of the swirling element is angled and/or curved (paragraph 0036). The swirling elements are depicted as repeated vane structures having the same spiral configuration and therefore the same twist characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ a plurality of identical twisted vanes in the separator of Broughton as taught by Vingelven because identical vane twist geometries provide uniform swirl generation, balanced flow distribution, and simplified manufacturing. The use of repeated vane elements having the same twist configuration represents a well-known design practice in centrifugal separators and swirl generators.
Regarding claim 6, Broughton discloses the illustrated helical vane (21) continuously spirals about centerline (19) throughout the length (24) of the separator. Thereby necessarily undergoing angular rotation substantially greater than 90 degrees between its upstream and downstream ends (figs. 1, 2-4A). Vingelven discloses a plurality of elements arranged around a central hub and extending helically along a spiral path to impart rotational motion of the fluid stream (figs. 16A-22; paragraphs 0114-0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ vanes having twist angle of at least 90 degrees because such vane configurations are known to increase rotational flow and centrifugal separation efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Broughton discloses the illustrated helical vane extends through multiple helical revolutions along the separator length, such that the angular orientation of the vane at the downstream end differs from the angular orientation at the upstream end by at least 180 degrees (figs. 1, 2-4A; col. 4, lines 57-57; col. 5, lines 10-24). Vingelven discloses a plurality of elements arranged around a central hub and extending helically along a spiral path to impart rotational motion of the fluid stream (figs. 16A-22; paragraphs 0114-0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ vanes with twist angle of at least 180 degrees because increasing vane twist is a recognized method of increasing swirl intensity and centrifugal separation effectiveness.
Regarding claim 8, Broughton discloses a water separator including a spiraling helical vane (21) disposed within a housing (11) and extending about central longitudinal axis (19) (fig.1; col. 4, lines 35-60). Broughton further discloses that the inlet fluid stream enters the separator and undergoes a rotating swirl as it impacts the first vane and proceeds through the separator chamber, the helical vane imparting centrifugal rotation of the fluid stream for phase separation (col. 3, lines 32-39).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broughton in view of Vingelven, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Bratton U.S. Pub. No. 11097214 B2, August 24, 2021 (hereinafter “Bratton”).
Regarding claim 9, Broughton fails to disclose a water separator wherein a direction of twist of the spiral-like configuration about the central longitudinal axis and a direction of a spin of a flow of medium provided to the upstream end of the outer housing is different. However, Bratton discloses a swirl element (14) that imparts rotational flow to the incoming medium and downstream vortex tabs (16a, 16b) that generate pairs of vortices that are substantially equal and opposite in direction relative to the opposed swirl, thereby deliberately creating opposing rotational flow structures within the separator (fig. 2-3; col. 3, lines 30-37; col. 4, lines 25-31; col 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the spiral-like vane arrangement of Broughton in view of Vingelven such that its twist direction differs from the direction of spin of the incoming flow, as taught by Bratton, because the art recognized that opposing rotational flow structures may be used to influence vortex formation, pressure drop, and separation efficiency.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broughton in view of Vingelven, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Saito et al. JP 2970295 B2, November 02, 1999 (hereinafter “Saito”).
Regarding claims 10, Broughton fails to disclose the plurality of vanes varies between the interior edge and the exterior edge proximate the downstream end of the outer housing. However, Saito discloses guide vanes having an axial length that varies between an interior edge and an exterior edge proximate the downstream end of the housing. Specifically, Saito discloses a retreating-wing valve guide vane/blade (4/4g) configuration wherein the downstream end of the vane is positioned farther downstream of the outer peripheral edge than at the inner edge, thereby causing the vane axial length to vary across the vane (figs. 9, 23; page 16, 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vanes of Broughton in view of Vingelven to include the varying length taught by Saito in order to improve liquid droplet transport toward the outer periphery and improve separation efficiency while reducing pressure losses, as taught by Saito.
Regarding claim 11, Broughton fails to disclose the plurality of vanes varies linearly between the interior edge and the exterior edge proximate the downstream end of the outer housing. However, Saito discloses guide vane configurations wherein downstream end of the vane is progressively displaced in the axial direction from the inner peripheral edge toward the outer peripheral edge (figs. 15-19; pages 15-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vanes of the separator of Broughton and Vengelven to incorporate the linearly varying length taught by Saito in order to improve droplet transport toward outer periphery, and reduce pressure losses within the separator.
Regarding claim 12, Broughton fails to disclose the plurality of vanes varies non-uniformly between the interior edge and the exterior edge proximate the downstream end of the outer housing. However, Saito discloses alternative retreating-wing guide vane configurations having tapered nd modified vane geometries that differ from the linear configuration of figure 9. Figures 22 and 23 discloses guide vane (4f and 4g) includes varying vane-width profiles and differing downstream edge configurations (page 22). Such tapered vane geometries result in the vane axial length varying non-uniformly between the interior and exterior edges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the separator vanes of Broughton and Vengelven to incorporate non-uniform vane length profiles taught by Saito in order to improve droplet guidance/transport toward outer periphery, enhance separation efficiency, and reduce pressure losses within the separator.
Regarding claim 13, Broughton fails to disclose the plurality of vanes increases from the interior edge toward the exterior edge proximate the downstream end of the outer housing. However, Saito discloses that the downstream end of the guide vane is located farther downstream at the outer peripheral edge than at the inner edge, such that the vane length increases in a direction from the interior edge toward the exterior edge (page 16, 22). Specifically, Saito discloses that the downstream end of the guide blade is lower at the inner edge and higher at the outer edge, thereby facilitating movement of separated water droplets toward the outer periphery (page 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the vanes of the Broughton/Vingelven separator with the increasing axial length configuration taught by Saito to improve centrifugal transport and separation performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broughton in view of Vingelven, as applied to claim 1, in further view of over Gerlach et al. U.S. Pub. No. 11058981 B2, July 13, 2021 (hereinafter “Gerlach”).
Regarding claim 14, Broughton fails to disclose the water separator comprising a duct, the water separator being removably mounted within the duct. However, Gerlach discloses a water separator (108) mounted within a discharge duct (104), wherein the water separator is configured as an insert positioned within the duct (figs. 1, 4; col. 3, lines 30-37). Gerlach further discloses that the separator is positioned within the duct as a discrete component separate from the duct itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the separator of Broughton and Vingelven as a removable insert within a duct as taught by Gerlach because removable installation facilitates maintenance, inspection, cleaning, replacement, and servicing of the separator while maintaining moisture-separation performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broughton in view of Vingelven, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Bruno et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20190225343 A1, July 25, 2019 (hereinafter “Bruno”).
Regarding claim 14, Broughton fails to disclose the water separator comprising a duct, the water separator being removably mounted within the duct. However, Bruno discloses an aircraft environmental control system including a ram air shell or duct (32) through which air is directed and within which system components are arranged and mounted (fig. 1; paragraph 0035-0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the separator of Broughton and Vingelven as a removably mounted within a duct as taught by Bruno because removable installation facilitates maintenance, inspection, cleaning, replacement, and servicing of the separator while maintaining moisture-separation performance.
Claims 14 and 15 recite alternative mounting implementations of the same separator/duct relationship (removably versus integrally formed). Selection of either arrangement would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design depending on desired maintenance, manufacturing, and assembly considerations. MPEP 2144.04.1058981
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20190225343 A1, July 25, 2019 (hereinafter “Bruno”) in view of Broughton U.S. Pub. No. 4834887A, February 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Broughton”) in further view of Vingelven et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180250620 A1, September 06, 2018 (hereinafter “Vingelven”).
Regarding claim 16, Bruno discloses an environmental control system for an aircraft/vehicle including an air-cycle machine components and moisture-removal devices. Bruno’s environmental control system (20) includes a compression device (40) and an expansion device (52) arranged in a conditioned-air flow path, together with a dehumidification system (60) having condensers (62) and water extractors (64, 66) positioned downstream of system components and in fluid communication therewith (fig. 1; paragraph 0032-0049). Bruno further discloses that air flows through the upstream ECS components and subsequently through the water extractor for moisture removal (paragraphs 0041-0049).
Broughton discloses a water separator comprising an outer housing in the form of a linear circular exterior pipe (11) having an upstream end, a downstream end, and a central longitudinal axis defined by center line (19) (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 47-53). Broughton discloses a spiral helical vane (21) disposed within the outer housing (11), the vane extending longitudinally through the separator from an upstream location A toward a downstream location B (fig. 1, col.4, lines 51-58; col. 5, lines 10-29). Broughton further discloses that the interior of the helical pitch edge 22 of the vane is secured to and contacts the interior wall (20) of the outer housing (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 52-58). Broughton teaches that the inner spiraling edge (26) defines a free volume (25) extending along center line (19), corresponding to a hollow channel defined by the interior edge of the vane (figs. 1-4A; col. 4, lines 60-67; col. 5, lines 1-8). Broughton additionally discloses flow passages between the vane (21) and the housing wall (20) through which fluid progresses from A to B while being subjected to centrifugal rotation, thereby providing flow channels having a spiral configuration about the central longitudinal axis (fig. 1; figs. 2-4A; col. 5, lines 10-29).
Vingelven discloses an axial-flow separator/demister including a plurality of swirling elements (vanes) arranged circumferentially about a central hub and central longitudinal axis (figs. 1A, 2-4; paragraphs 0096-0098). Vingelven discloses that the swirling elements (22) have an at least partially spiral configuration around the central hub and define multiple flow passages extending axially through the separator (paragraph 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the water separation of Broughton and Vingelven into the environmental control system of Bruno because both references are directed to removing liquid droplets from a flowing gas stream, and such substitution would have predictably improved moisture removal while maintaining airflow through the environmental control system.
Regarding claim 17, Bruno discloses that the environmental control system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (paragraphs 0002-0004, 0032-0034).
Regarding claim 18, Bruno discloses that the environmental control system component is a turbine (44, 46). Bruno discloses a compression device (40) including a first turbine (44), a second turbine (46), and a power turbine (48), each operably coupled to shaft (50) (fig. 1, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 19, Bruno discloses a dehumidification system (60) including condenser (62) and the water extractor (64) function as a middle pressure water separator (fig. 2; paragraph 0046). During operation, a mixture A4 is cooled in condenser (62) and moisture is removed in water extractor (64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights