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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1–3, 6–12, 14 and 17–20 in the reply filed on December 01, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 12, 14, 17 and 18 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.
Claim 8 recites:
8. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one inlet is provided in an inlet ring which is axially adjacent to at least one jacket element of the degassing container and is arranged between two jacket elements of the degassing container, wherein the inlet ring comprises several inlets distributed over the circumference, which open tangentially into an inner circumferential surface of the inlet ring, and/or wherein the inlet ring comprises an inner circumferential surface which adjoins an inner circumferential surface of the at least one jacket element and is aligned therewith. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “two jacket elements” refers to the “at least one jacket element” or to different jacket elements. Further clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites:
12. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of degassing containers arranged in parallel and/or series, wherein the plurality of degassing containers are operated at different vacuum levels. Emphasis added.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “plurality of degassing containers” is required to include the “degassing container” of claim 1, or if the “plurality of degassing containers” can include exclusively degassing containers other than the degassing container of claim 1. Further clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A degassing container for the hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1. Emphasis added.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “A degassing container” refers to the “degassing container” of claim 1, or to a different degassing container. Further clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites:
17. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 6, wherein the vacuum source generates a pressure of less than 0.2 bar abs, and/or wherein the vacuum source generates a pressure of more than 0.05 bar abs, in particular a pressure between 0.08 bar abs and 0.1 bar abs. Emphasis added.
Claim 17 is indefinite because the language “in particular” leads to confusion about the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(c). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 17 is interpreted to read:
17. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 6, wherein the vacuum source generates a pressure of less than 0.2 bar abs, and/or wherein the vacuum source generates a pressure of more than 0.05 bar abs
Claim 18 recites:
18. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 7, wherein the element arranged in the feed line to the degassing container for reducing volume flow and/or pressure at the at least one inlet is an adjusting and/or regulating element, in particular a valve and/or a pressure reducer. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because the language “in particular” leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1–3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rivard, US 2016/0195076 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rivard teaches a pumping unit comprising a cyclonic separator 20 for separating gas from liquid. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0065], [0072]–[0074]. The pumping unit reads on the claimed “hydrocyclone degassing device for degassing a liquid.” See Rivard Fig. 2, [0065], [0072]–[0074]. The pumping unit comprises a volumetric pump 30, which reads on the “liquid pump.” Id. at Fig. 2, [0074]–[0076]. The pumping unit also comprises a cyclonic vessel 21 in which an outer liquid and an inner gas cyclone are formed along an axis of rotation because the cyclonic vessel 21 is a cyclonic separator where heavier liquid will rotate toward the outside while lighter gas will rotate toward the inside of the vessel 21 along an axis of rotation. Id. The cyclonic vessel 21 reads on the “degassing container.” Id. The cyclonic vessel 21 comprises an inlet mouth 22 for the incoming liquid (the “at least one inlet for the liquid”), a delivery outlet 23 for the liquid (the “at least one outlet for the liquid”) and a suction opening 24 for extracting gas (the “at least one extraction port for extracting gas”). Id.
The delivery outlet 23 is in hydraulic connection with a suction side of the volumetric pump 30, as claimed, because the volumetric pump suctions liquid from the outlet 23 to deliver it into storage chamber 11. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0076].
PNG
media_image1.png
698
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rivard teaches that the cyclonic vessel 21 (the “degassing container”) is configured such that the liquid flows tangentially into the cyclonic vessel 21 via the inlet mouth 22 (the “inlet”), as claimed, because the inlet mouth 22 is on the side of the cyclonic vessel 21 with the cyclonic vessel being used to create a cyclone that separates gas from liquid. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0074]–[0076]. Also, the cyclonic vessel 21 is configured such that the liquid is withdrawn axially from the cyclonic vessel 21 by the outlet 23, as seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 3, Rivard teaches that the suction opening 24 (the “at least one extraction port”) is in hydraulic connection with a suction side of a vacuum pump 35 (the “vacuum source”), as claimed. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0078]. Also, the suction opening 24 is axially opposite to the outlet 23 (the “at least one outlet for the liquid”), as claimed. Id.
Regarding claim 7, Rivard teaches that the pumping unit (the “hydrocyclone degassing device”) comprises a safety valve 46 arranged downstream of the volumetric pump (the “liquid pump”) with the safety valve 46 being usable to equalize pressure within storage chamber 11 by discharging gases. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0080]. The safety valve 46 reads on the “pressure equalization element arranged downstream of the liquid pump.”
Regarding claim 9, Rivard teaches that the inlet mouth 22 (the “at least one inlet”) is arranged in a region between an axial center of the cyclonic vessel 21 (the “degassing container”) and an axial end at which the suction opening 24 (the “extraction port”) is provided, as seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Rivard teaches that the cyclonic vessel 21 (the “degassing container”) has a rotationally symmetrical interior, which has a cylinder (the upper portion of the cyclonic vessel 21 as seen in Figs. 2 and 5) and conical shape (the lower portion of the cyclonic vessel 21 as seen in Figs. 2 and 5), as claimed. The cyclonic vessel 21 also comprises at least one circular cylindrical jacket element, which is the cylindrical portion in the upper portion of the cyclonic vessel 21, as claimed, as seen in Figs. 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 12, Rivard teaches a “plurality of degassing containers arranged in parallel” which are the hydrocyclone 55 (capable of degassing water) and the cyclonic vessel 21. See Rivard Fig. 3, [0084]. The hydrocyclone 55 and cyclonic vessel 21 are capable of being operated at different vacuum levels because the reference is silent as to the degassing containers being required to be operated at the same level. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 14, Rivard teaches the cyclonic vessel 21, which reads on the “degassing container for the hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1.” See Rivard Fig. 2, [0074].
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of the claim of—“wherein the element arranged in the feed line to the degassing container for reducing volume flow and/or pressure at the at least one inlet is an adjusting and/or regulating element, in particular a valve and/or a pressure reducer”—are not required by the claim as they are optional because claim 7 (from which claim 18 depends) does not require that the hydrocyclone degassing device of claim 1 comprises an element arranged in the feed line to the degassing chamber for reducing volume flow and/or pressure at the at least one inlet” (as this “element” is one of three options in claim 7).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of the claim of—“wherein the element arranged in the feed line to the degassing container for energy recovery is a turbine”—are not required by the claim as they are optional because claim 7 (from which claim 19 depends) does not require that the hydrocyclone degassing device of claim 1 comprises an element arranged in the feed line to the degassing chamber for reducing volume flow and/or pressure at the at least one inlet” (as this “element” is one of three options in claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of the claim of—“wherein the at least one inlet is arranged spaced axially from the axial position of the at least one extraction port in the direction of the outlet side by at least 10% of the axial extent of the degassing container”— are not required by the claim as they are optional because claim 9 (from which claim 20 depends) does not require that the at least one inlet is arranged spaced axially from an axial position of the at least one extraction port in a direction of an outlet side, as this is one of two options listed in claim 9.
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.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivard, US 2016/0195076 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Rivard teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Rivard differs from claims 6 and 17 because it is silent as to the pressure generated by the vacuum pump 35 (the “vacuum source”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the vacuum pump 35 generates a pressure of less than 0.3 bar abs or more than 0.01 bar abs (claim 6) or pressure of less than 0.2 bar abs or more than 0.5 bar abs (claim 17). But Rivard teaches that the pressure generated by the vacuum pump 35 is result effective because it must be sufficient to ensure that gaseous products from the cyclonic vessel 21 are suctioned from the cyclonic vessel 21. See Rivard [0079]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal pressure for the vacuum pump 35 to operate to ensure that there is sufficient suction to remove gaseous products from the cyclonic vessel 21. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivard, US 2016/0195076 A1 in view of Giesse, US 3,034,647.
Regarding claim 8, Rivard teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Rivard differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the inlet mouth 22 (the “inlet”) of the cyclone separator 20 being provided in an inlet ring with the claimed structure.
But Giesse teaches a cyclone separator comprising an annular ring 13 that forms an inlet to the separator (the annular ring 13 reads on “the at least one inlet is provided in an inlet ring”). See Giesse Figs. 1, 2, col. 2, ll. 46–71. The annular ring 13 is axially adjacent to a plate means 18 (“at least one jacket element”) above the annular ring 13 and member 12 below the annular ring 13 (also “at least one jacket element”), reading on the “inlet ring” being “axially adjacent to at least one jacket element of the degassing container and is arranged between two jacket elements of the degassing container.” Id. The annular ring 13 comprises tangential openings distributed over the circumference, which open into an inner circumferential surface of the annular ring 13, which reads on “several inlets distributed over the circumference, which open tangentially into an inner circumferential surface of the inlet ring.” Id. The annular ring 13 also has an inner circumferential surface which adjoins an inner circumferential surface of member 12 and is aligned therewith, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1. The cyclone separator of Giesse is beneficial because it has more efficiency separation action compared to conventional cyclone separators. Id. at col. 2, ll. 63–71. It would have been obvious to use the cyclone separator of Giesse as the cyclone separator 20 of Rivard to provide this benefit, with the modification also representing the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
PNG
media_image2.png
929
1201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Rivard teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Rivard differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to a primary vortex element being provided in a feed line to the at least one element into the cyclonic vessel 21 (the “degassing container”) with at least one primary vortex housing having at least one primary vortex housing having at least one tangential inlet and/or axial outlet.
But Giesse teaches a cyclone separator comprising an annular ring 13 (the “primary vortex element”) provided in an area that feeds liquid to the downstream portion of openings 20 into the interior of the cyclone separator (the area that feeds liquid reads on the “feed line” and the downstream portion of openings 20 read on the “at least one inlet”). The structure of the ring 13 reads on the “primary vortex housing” and the upstream portion of each opening 20 (each provided at a tangent) reads on the “at least one tangential inlet.” See Giesse Figs. 1, 2, col. 2, ll. 46–71. The cyclone separator of Giesse is beneficial because it has more efficiency separation action compared to conventional cyclone separators. Id. at col. 2, ll. 63–71. It would have been obvious to use the cyclone separator of Giesse as the cyclone separator 20 of Rivard to provide this benefit, with the modification also representing the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776