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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroaki et al (CN 1891344 A).
With respect to claim 1, Hiroaki teaches a separation device in the form of a liquid hydrocyclone which is capable of suppressing foaming [0002] which includes the following features [Figs. 1 and 4]:
a cyclone extending along a central axis (2), (2a), (2b) including an introduction port for introducing a liquid containing foreign matter (2c) and a first discharge port provided at a lower end for discharging the foreign matter (2d) and which is intended to operate according to the same cyclone principles as claimed [Fig. 1, 0012, 0004];
a clean case provided on an opposite side of the first discharge port in an extending direction of the cyclone (3) including a barrier wall on which a connecting hole is provided (3a) with a connecting hole at the upper end of the cyclone, and a second discharge port (5) [Fig. 4];
a gas-liquid separation tube provided in the clean case, extending from the connecting hole along the central axis (6), and including a plurality of first holes (formed from perforated plate or slitted plate) [Fig. 4, 0042]; and
an inner wall provided in the clean case extending along the central axis (70) including a plurality of second holes (formed from mesh plate) [0050-0051].
The system is configured such that liquid flows up via the overflow outlet into the clean case, and then via the damping sections such as the mesh plates to be discharged from the discharge port [0053]. As described Hiroaki, cleaning fluid may flow on both the inside and outside surfaces of the cylinder (6), while air is primarily confined to the inside of cylinder (6) [0053] thereby reducing air contents of the liquid output. At minimum, that fraction of the liquid which swirls on the inner surface of cylinder (6) will pass through both the holes of cylinder (6) and the holes of the inner wall (70) and thus be consistent with the claimed flow path. The specific flow pattern established may however be directed to the intended use of the claimed device, because it would necessarily depend upon operational parameters such as the pressure of the feed.
The system taught by Hiroaki as best understood anticipates the claimed invention for the above reasons.
With respect to claim 3, the area enclosed by tube (6) is small compared to the rest of the area of the device and includes essentially only the central air column [Fig. 4].
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the clean case includes a side wall enclosing the inner wall and the cyclone, to which the second discharge port is connected [Fig. 4]. This may be connected, via barrier wall (3a), to a bottom wall between the first discharge port and the barrier wall, in the form of vortex finder (4). The instant claim language is sufficiently broad to be read on this arrangement.
With respect to claim 6, the second discharge port is positioned on the side wall and hence faces the cyclone at least in the form of the central vortex, absent clarification of the structural requirements this is interpreted as sufficient to satisfy the claim requirements.
With respect to claim 7, the inner wall is closer to the cyclone section than any stored liquid would be (which is outward from the central vortex), absent clarification of the structural requirements this is interpreted as sufficient to satisfy the claim requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki et al.
See the discussion of Hiroaki above. The inner tube (6) is designed to retain the central air column and is suggested to possible include some liquid flow, but the wall (70) is primarily present to act as a damper for most or all of the purified liquid flow. As such, providing larger holes on the wall (70) which encounters the larger volume of flow and which is not directly tasked with retaining an air column would at least have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. See further MPEP 2144.04 IV.A; changes in size and proportion are obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777