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 Status
Claims 1-11 are pending:
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2022 130 081 filed on 11/14/2022.
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 8-9 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.
Claims 8-9 recite “and/or”; it is unclear what “/” is intended to convey. Applicant is encouraged to delete “and/or” language and either draft a dependent claim with “and” proviso and draft the claim with the “or” proviso”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ).
Regarding claim 1, Tonguren teaches a centrifugal separator (10) (cyclone with conical lower part, see title on pg. 1) comprising a housing (12) (upper part 5), which extends along a central axis (14) and has a separating chamber wall (24) for delimiting a separating chamber (26) that is fed by an inlet channel (44) (inlet pipe 6) for polyphasic fluid (separating dust or liquid droplets from a gas stream, see pg. 3), wherein a central immersion tube (50) (piping/tubing 11) is provided for discharging a first fluid phase and an outlet channel (54) (central gas outlet opening 9) is provided for discharging a second fluid phase, wherein an expansion chamber (30) (dust container 12), which widens radially outward with respect to the separating chamber (26) (see Fig. 1) and is radially outwardly delimited by an expansion chamber wall (32) (see annotated Fig. 1), is provided between the separating chamber (26) and the outlet channel (54) (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the separating chamber (26) conically widens from the inlet channel (44), as seen along the central axis (14), toward the expansion chamber (30) (slightly conical upper part, see pg. 4 which means that the base is widest at the bottom therefore widens towards the dust container).
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
413
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1, wherein the immersion tube (50) extends over at most 60% of a length (28), measured along the central axis (14), of the separating chamber (26) (see Figs. 1 and 3, the tube 11 extends approximately 30-40% in chamber, because the tube 11 does not extend deep into the chamber, there is no depiction suggesting >60% penetration).
Regarding claim 7, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1, wherein the expansion chamber (30) has a fluid guiding section (78) which extends around the central axis (14) in frustoconical …and is on a bottom (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1, wherein the inlet channel (44) has a boundary wall (46), which is on an outside with respect to the central axis (14) and tangentially adjoins a section (48) of the separating chamber wall (24) (see Fig. 3 wherein the inlet pipe enters tangentially because it is parallel to the local tangent of the circular chamber 5)…
Regarding claim 10, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1 wherein an annular transition region (38) (conical lower part 8) between one end (40) of the separating chamber wall (26) and a boundary section (42) covering the expansion chamber (30) is …rounded (see Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) in view of Suez (see NPL titled “SUEZ Degremont Water Handhook” in 892).
Regarding claim 2, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1.
Tonguren does not teach wherein an angle of inclination (36), measured relative to the central axis (14), of the separating chamber wall (24) is between 2° and 20°.
In a related field of endeavor, Suez teaches geometric parameters of centrifuges (see pg. 1) wherein an angle of inclination (36), measured relative to the central axis (14), of the separating chamber wall (24) is between 2° and 20° (angle of conicity ranges from 8-12 degrees for all applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angle of inclination of the separation chamber of Tonguren by selecting an angle of inclination in the range of 8-12 degrees disclosed by Suez because it is desirable to select a workable range for depending the application in order to achieve the desired separation effect, mass flow rate and internal storage capacity for that application. 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
Regarding claim 11, Tonguren and Suez teach the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 2, wherein the angle of inclination (36) is between 2.5° and 15° (Suez, angles 8-12 degrees listed on pg. 2 fall within the claimed range).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) in view of Schwarz (see NPL titled “Selecting the right Centrifuge” in 892).
Regarding claim 4, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 3.
Tonguren does not teach wherein a ratio between the length (28), measured along the central axis (14), of the separating chamber (26) and a largest diameter (34) of the separating chamber (26) is between 6:1 and 1:1.
In a related field of endeavor, Schwarz teaches decanter centrifuge selection (see Introduction pg. 2) wherein a ratio between the length (28), measured along the central axis (14), of the separating chamber (26) and a largest diameter (34) of the separating chamber (26) is between 6:1 and 1:1 (L:D usually 2 or 3 or 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the L:D of the separation chamber of Tonguren by selecting a L:D of 2 or 3 or 4 as disclosed by Schwarz because it is a critical design parameter to optimize the separation efficiency and the fluid dynamics thus leading to optimal residence times and separation efficiency of particles and phases with a reasonable expectation of success. 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
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) in view of Frykhult (DE 28 09 575).
Regarding claim 5, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1.
Tonguren does not teach wherein the expansion chamber (30) comprises a fluid discharge section (70), which is spaced apart from the central axis (14), is on a bottom and, with respect to an orientation perpendicular to the central axis (14), has a slope (72) which is similar to a screw thread and assists the discharge of the second fluid phase.
In a related field of endeavor, Frykhult teaches a hydrocyclone separator (see ABS) comprising a fluid discharge section (70), which is spaced apart from the central axis (14), is on a bottom and, with respect to an orientation perpendicular to the central axis (14), has a slope (72) which is similar to a screw thread and assists the discharge of the second fluid phase (see guide device 7 in the form of a helical path forms a screw path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the expansion chamber of Tonguren by incorporating a fluid discharge section as disclosed by Frykhult because it gives a heavy fraction flowing towards discharge an axial component of movement.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) in view of Grubbens (GB 1 185 274).
Regarding claim 6, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1.
Tonguren does not teach wherein the outlet channel (54) comprises a bottom section (74), which, with respect to an orientation perpendicular to the central axis (14), has an outlet channel slope (76) which assists the discharge of the second fluid phase.
In a related field of endeavor, Grubbens teaches a cyclone separator (see ABS) wherein the outlet channel (54) comprises a bottom section (74), which, with respect to an orientation perpendicular to the central axis (14), has an outlet channel slope (76) which assists the discharge of the second fluid phase (see container 3 having outlet slanted and perpendicular to the central axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outlet of Tonguren by orienting it perpendicularly as disclosed by Grubbens because it efficiently captures the separated phase without disrupting the overall separation process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) in view of Carr (USPN 3,558,484).
Regarding claim 9, Tonguren teaches the centrifugal separator (10) according to Claim 1.
Tonguren does not teach wherein the inlet channel (44) has a rectangular cross section and/or wherein the outlet channel (54) has a rectangular cross section.
In a related field of endeavor, Carr teaches a separating apparatus (see ABS) comprising an inlet having a circular or rectangular or square cross section (see C3/L45-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inlet shape of Tonguren by selecting a rectangular cross section as disclosed by Carr because it achieves the predictable result obviously resulting in a suitable cross-sectional area for transporting a mixture from one operation to another with a reasonable expectation of success. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.04).
Foreign Translations
Machine Translations of Tonguren (DE T 49 90M AZ) and Grubbens (GB 1 185 274) are provided in 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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 at (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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773