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 .
Rejoinder
Claims 4, 5 and 16 are rejoined.
Claim 13 remains withdrawn.
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 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 16, 20 and 23 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 2 recites “the at least one inlet.” Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the at least one inlet” refers to the “at least one inlet for the liquid” or to the “at least one tangential primary inlet” of claim 1.
Claim 2 also recites “the at least one outlet.” Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the at least one outlet” refers to the “at least one outlet for the liquid” or the “one axial primary outlet” of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the suction side of a vacuum source.” This limitation renders claim 4 indefinite because “the suction side” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 5 and 16 are indefinite because it depends from claim 4.
Claims 7 and 9 each recite “the at least one inlet.” The limitation renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the at least one inlet” refers to the “at least one inlet for the liquid” or to the “at least one tangential primary inlet” of claim 1.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it depends from claim 9.
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 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, wherein the inlet ring comprises an inner circumferential surface which adjoins inner circumferential surfaces of the two jacket elements and is aligned therewith. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the at least one inlet” refers to the “at least one inlet for liquid” (claim 1), to the “at least one tangential primary inlet” (claim 1), or to some other, unspecified inlet.
Claim 8 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the—“several inlets distributed over the circumference, which open tangentially”—refers to the “at least one tangential primary inlet” or to some other element. This confusion is because the specification appears to indicate that the tangential inlets 11 are both the “at least one tangential primary inlet” and the “several inlets distributed over the circumference, which open tangentially.” See Spec. Figs. 2, 4, [0087]. But the claim is written such that the “several inlets distributed over the circumference, which open tangentially” and “at least one tangential primary inlet” are different elements.
Claim 8 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the “inlet ring” is the same element as the “primary vortex element” of claim 1. This confusion is because the “primary vortex element” of claim 1 appears to have the same structure as the “inlet ring” (as both contain tangential inlets” with the specification showing that the inlet ring 14 and the vortex element 28 referring to the same general structure. See Spec. Figs. 3, 5, [0090], [0106]. But the claim is written such that they are different elements. Further clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites:
16. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 5, wherein the pump is a diaphragm pump, and the arrangement for cooling the fluid circulating in the secondary hydraulic circuit is provided in the form of a chiller and/or heat exchanger.
Claim 16 is indefinite because claim 5 does not require that the device comprises both “the pump” and “the arrangement for cooling fluid” (as these are optional introduced with “and/or”).
Claim 23 recites:
23. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1, wherein the primary vortex element comprises a primary inlet channel leading to the tangential primary inlet, and wherein the primary inlet channel has a cross-section tapering in the direction of flow and therefore forms a nozzle. Emphasis added.
Claim 23 is indefinite because claim 1 refers to “at least one tangential primary inlet” (indicating that the device can have multiple tangential primary inlets). But claim 23 describes “the tangential primary inlet” (singular), creating confusion about which is the tangential primary inlets is referenced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites:
22. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 21, wherein the axial primary outlet of the primary vortex element is coaxial with the inlet channel leading to the at least one inlet int the degassing container. Emphasis added.
The Applicant has failed to explain where the specification provides support for the axial primary outlet being “coaxial with” with inlet channel leading to the at least one inlet, and the specification does not provide support for this new limitation. See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I. Instead, the disclosure illustrates the inlet channels 31 as being tangential, which would mean that none of the channels 31 would be “coaxial with” an “axial primary outlet.”
Claim 24 recites:
24. The hydrocyclone degassing device according to claim 1, wherein the degassing container comprises a plurality of inlets for the liquid, and wherein each of the plurality of inlets is provided with a respective primary vortex element.
The Applicant has failed to explain where the specification provides support for the degassing container comprises “a plurality of inlets for the liquid” where each of inlet is provide with “a respective primary vortex element.” See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I. Instead, the specification illustrates that degassing container 10 comprises a single primary vortex element 28. See Spec. Figs. 1, 5, [0087], [0106].
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 1–7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giesse, US 3,034,647 in view of Rivard, US 2016/0195076 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Giesse teaches a cyclone separator that is capable of removing gas from a liquid (as it separates heavier and lighter components of a fluid). See Giesse Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 8–13. The cyclone separator reads on the “hydrocyclone degassing device for degassing a liquid.”
The cyclone separator comprises a treating chamber 10 (the “degassing container”) in which an “outer liquid cyclone” (the heavier constituents moving along liner 12A to nozzle 17) and an “inner gas cyclone” (the lighter constituents moving through tube 16) are capable of being formed along an “axis of rotation” (the axis running through tube 16). See Giesse Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 21–45. The treating chamber 10 comprises “at least one inlet for liquid,” which is the area of the chamber 10 immediately below cylindrical tube 19 where liquid enters this portion of the chamber 10 from the cylindrical tube 19. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 56–71. The treating chamber 10 also comprises a nozzle 17 for the heavier constituents (the “at least one outlet for the liquid”) and the tube 16 for the lighter constituents (the “at least one extraction port for extracting gas”). Id.
The cylindrical tube 19 is used to rotate material entering the chamber 10. See Giesse Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 56–71. The cylindrical tube 19 reads on the “primary vortex element.” The cylindrical tube 19 is provided upstream of “the at least one inlet into the degassing chamber,” as claimed, because liquid flows through the cylindrical tube 19 and then not the area of the chamber 10 immediately below cylindrical tube 19. Id. The cylindrical tube 19 comprises “at least one primary vortex housing,” which is the structure of the cylindrical tube 19. Id. The structure of the cylindrical tube 19 comprises tangential openings 20, which read on “at least one tangential primary inlet.” Id. The structure of the cylindrical tube 19 also comprises an outlet at the bottom side of the tube 19 for discharging liquid into the area of the chamber 10 below the cylindrical tube 19, with this outlet being coaxial with the tube 16. Id. The outlet at the bottom side of the tube 19 reads on the “one axial primary outlet.”
The cylindrical tube 19 is upstream of the “at least one inlet,” as seen in the annotated figure below (claim 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
935
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giesse differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the cyclone separator comprising a liquid pump with the nozzle 17 (“the at least one outlet of the degassing container”) being in hydraulic connection with a suction side of the liquid pump.
But Giesse teaches that the rate of underflow (i.e., the rate that heavier constituents are removed through nozzle 17) can be controlled by various mechanisms (including cup-shaped member 27 or valve member 70). See Giesse Figs. 1, 3, col. 3, ll. 5–21, col. 4, ll. 3–14.
With this in mind, Rivard teaches a cyclonic separator vessel 21 comprising an outlet 23 for liquid products with a liquid pump 30 for delivering liquid products from the separator vessel 21 to a downstream location. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0075]–[0076].
It would have been obvious to use the pump 30 of Rivard as the mechanism for controlling the rate of underflow exiting the nozzle 17 of Giesse (instead of the mechanisms shown in Figs. 1 or 3) because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Regarding claim 2, Giesse teaches that the chamber 10 (the “degassing container”) is configured such that the liquid is withdrawn axially from the chamber 10 via the nozzle 17 (the “at least one outlet”), as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 17, Giesse teaches that the tube 16 (the “at least one extraction port”) is axially opposite the nozzle 17 (the “at least one outlet for the liquid”), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1.
Giesse differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the tube 16 being in hydraulic connection with a suction side of a vacuum source.
But Rivard teaches a cyclonic separator vessel 21 comprising a suction opening 24 for discharging gas with a vacuum pump 35 mounted to the suction opening 24 to create suction at the suction opening 24. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0078]–[0079]. The vacuum pump 35 is beneficial because the suction it creates at opening 24 assists in withdrawing gas from the separator 21. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the vacuum pump 35 of Rivard with the tube 16 of Giesse to assist in removing gas from the chamber 10 through the tube 16.
Giesse as modified differs from claims 6 and 17 because Rivard is silent as to the pressure generated by the vacuum pump 35, and therefore fails to provide enough information to teach the vacuum pump 35 generating a pressure of less than 0.3 bar abs or more than 0.01 bar abs (claim 6) or a pressure of less than 0.2 bar abs or more than 0.5 bar abs (claim 17). But 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 vessel 21. See Rivard [0079]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal pressure for the pump 35 to operate to ensure that there is sufficient suction to remove gaseous products from the chamber 10. 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).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Giesse as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Giesse as modified differs from claims 4 and 5 because it is silent as to the tube 16 (the “at least one extraction port”) being in hydraulic connection with the suction side of a vacuum source that is a water jet pump arranged in a secondary hydraulic circuit.
But Rivard teaches a cyclonic separator vessel 21 comprising a suction opening 24 for discharging gas with a hydro injector 50 (a water jet pump) mounted to the suction opening 24 to create suction at the suction opening 24. See Rivard Fig. 3, [0083]. The hydro injector 50 is “arranged in a secondary hydraulic circuit,” which is the circuit of water supplied to the hydro injector 50 (including water store 51). The “secondary hydraulic circuit” comprises an arrangement for water (“cooling fluid”) circulating in the water store 51, which is the source of water to the water store 51. Id. The hydro injector 50 is beneficial because the suction it creates at opening 24 assists in withdrawing gas from the separator 21. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the hydro injector 50 of Rivard (including the “secondary hydraulic circuit”) with the tube 16 of Giesse to assist in removing gas from the chamber 10 through the tube 16.
Regarding claim 7, Giesse as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Giesse as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to a pressure equalization element arranged downstream of the liquid pump.
But Rivard teaches that the cyclonic separator 21 sends degassed liquid to a storage chamber 11 comprising a safety valve 46 (the “pressure equalization element”) usable to equalize pressure within the storage chamber 11 by discharging gases. See Rivard Fig. 2, [0080]. The safety valve 46 is downstream of the liquid pump 30. Id. The storage chamber 11 is beneficial because it provides a vessel for receiving degassed liquid, and the safety valve 46 is beneficial to prevent risks of excessive pressure in the storage chamber 11. Id.
It would have been obvious for the degassed liquid exiting through the nozzle 17 of Giesse to be sent to a storage chamber with the safety valve of Rivard to provide a vessel for receiving the liquid with the vessel having a safety device to prevent excess pressure in the vessel.
Regarding claim 9, Giesse teaches that the “at least one inlet” is arranged in a region between an axial center of the chamber 10 and an axial end at which the outlet of the tube 16 (part of the “at least one extraction port”) is provided, as seen in the annotated version of Fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Giesse teaches that the chamber 10 comprises an upper closure plate provided with a central bore, as claimed, which is the plate at the top of the chamber 10, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Giesse teaches that the system comprises the chamber 10 seen in Fig. 1, which reads on “the degassing container is a first degassing container.”
Giesse differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the system comprising a second degassing container arranged in parallel or series with the chamber 10 where the first and second degassing containers are operated at different vacuum levels.
But Rivard teaches a system comprising two cyclonic separators 21, 55 arranged in series, with the two cyclonic separators 21, 55 being capable of operating at different vacuum levels (as there is no mention of the separators 21, 55 being required to operate at a particular vacuum level). See Rivard Fig. 3, [0084].
It would have been obvious to connect an additional chamber 10 in series with the chamber 10 seen in Fig. 1 of Giesse because this would merely represent obvious duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, B. The two separators would be capable of operating at different vacuum levels, as claimed. 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 20, the limitation of—“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”—is optional because claim 9 uses “and/or” when introducing “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.”
Regarding claim 21, Giesse teaches that the outlet at the bottom of the cylindrica tube 19 (the “axial primary outlet of the primary vortex element”) is connected to the interior channels of the tangential openings 20 (one interior channel reading on “an inlet channel leading to the at least one inlet into the degassing container”), as seen in the annotated Fig. 1 in the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above. The tube 19 (the “primary vortex element”) closes the interior channel of the tangential opening 20 axially because the tube 19 forms a bottom wall of the channel, allowing it to operate as a tangential opening (instead of an axial opening).
Regarding claim 23, Giesse teaches that the tube 19 (the “primary vortex element”) comprises channels running through the tangential openings 20 (or 51) (one channel reads on the “primary inlet channel”) with the channel having a cross-section tapering in the direction of flow and therefore forms a nozzle, as seen in Figs. 2 and 5 where the cross-section of openings 20, 51 narrows in the direction of flow.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the Non-Final Rejection dated January 15, 2026 because the amendments overcome the previous issues.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that Giesse fails to disclose a primary vortex element comprising at least one primary vortex housing and one axial primary outlet. See Applicant Rem. filed April 15, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 9–10. Instead, it is argued that all of the inlets and outlets of ring 13 and annular channel 21 of Giesse are tangential rather than axial. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection above, the cylindrical tube 19 of Giesse reads on the claimed “primary vortex element.” The cylindrical tube has an axially oriented outlet at the bottom that drains into the chamber 10, as seen in the annotated Fig. 1 below. This axially oriented outlet reads on the “one axial primary outlet.”
PNG
media_image2.png
1146
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights