NON-FINAL 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 Group I (claims 22-37) in the reply filed on 28 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 38-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). Figures 2-13, 16-19, and 21-23 are not clear; the words and numbers are blurry and difficult to discern. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01. The title should specify the feature of monitoring the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket using an accelerometer.
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 24, 30, and 32 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 24 recites the limitation "the purging rate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the purged liquid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites varying the rotation speed of the centrifugal basket “to obtain an optimal separation of the solid and liquid phases”. The term “optimal” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). The specification identifies no purity, color, ash content, yield, or other measurable criteria by which a separation is determined to be “optimal”. It is therefore unclear what adjustments of the rotation speed fall within the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as varying the rotation speed to improve separation of the solid and liquid phases using a predetermined amount of washing liquid or steam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 36 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “a computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 22 when said computer program product is run on a computer or run on a microprocessor”. The claim does not recite any structural element of the claimed product; the recitation of a computer or microprocessor defines only the environment in which the program is run and is not an element of the claimed product. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claims 22-24, 30, 34, 35, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3421136 (Nielsen) in view of Marro (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0279647).
Regarding claim 22, Nielsen discloses a method for controlling separation of solid and liquid phases in a centrifugal basket of a centrifugal (para. [0001]), the method comprising the steps of: monitoring at least associated values of the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket and a purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket (“determining when the purging starts, when the purging ends, the purging intensity over as a function of time and/or the distributions of frequencies in the purging signal from the vibration sensor or sound sensor”, para. [0035]), wherein the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket is monitored using a vibration sensor (“a sensor 124 in the form of a sound sensor or vibration sensor is arranged on an exterior surface portion of the outer housing 109, para. [0055]), determining a safe temporal range within which temporal range a washing liquid or steam can be safely applied to the content of the centrifugal basket (“a first predetermined amount of washing liquid/spray water or steam may be added to the fill-mass when a first predetermined vibration signal level or sound signal level has been reached. Alternatively or in combination therewith the addition of the washing liquid/spray water or steam to the fill-mass may be interrupted when a second predetermined vibration signal level or sound signal level has been reached”, para. [0030]), applying a washing liquid or steam to the content of the centrifugal basket during at least a portion of the safe temporal range (para. [0058]).
Nielsen discloses a “vibration sensor” but does not expressly disclose an accelerometer, nor does Nielsen expressly disclose determining self-induced vibrations of the centrifugal within a predetermined rotational speed range of the centrifugal basket using an accelerometer, and wherein the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket is monitored while taking into account the determined self-induced vibrations of the centrifugal.
Marrow discloses a vibration sensor corresponding to an accelerometer (para. [0022]), and discloses determining self-induced vibrations of the centrifugal within a predetermined rotational speed range of the centrifugal basket using the accelerometer (“each time a fill cycle is about to begin,…the at least one processor may be operatively programmed to determine an average, or some other value, derived from the initial vibration level for the bowl”, para. [0027]), and wherein the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket is monitored while taking into account the determined self-induced vibrations of the centrifugal (“This derived value may then be continuously compared to current vibration measurements”, para. [0027]; “continuously average the most recent vibration data over several seconds to verify that the current vibration level of the bowl has indeed dropped to a continuous average level that is substantially similar to the determined average initial vibration level”, para. [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Marro’s accelerometer for Nielsen’s vibration sensor and to incorporate Marro’s self-induced vibration baseline determination into Nielsen’s purging/monitoring step, because Marrow teaches that establishing an empty basket baseline vibration level, measured with an accelerometer, allows subsequent vibration measurements to be compared against that baseline to avoid false process determinations (para. [0027]-[0028], Marro), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the comparing to baseline technique would improve the reliability of Nielsen’s purging signal by distinguishing it from the centrifuge’s self-induced vibrations.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses wherein the safe temporal range is adapted to begin when a predetermined condition with respect to at least the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket is met (“a predetermined amount of washing liquid/spray water or steam may be added to the fill-mass when a first predetermined vibration signal level or sound signal level has been reached”, para. [0030], Nielsen).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses wherein the predetermined condition with respect to the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket comprises that the purging rate is essentially decreasing over time (Nielson monitors “the purging intensity as a function of time” (claim 2), and that washing liquid or steam is added “when the purging of the liquid phase has reduced to a level where added washing liquid or steam will not blend with the remaining liquid phase of the fill-mass”, para. [0016], Nielsen).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses the step of controlling a first controllable valve (para. [0024], Nielsen) configured to separate the purged liquid into an impure amount when in a first position, and a pure amount when in a second position (para. [0024] and [0060], Nielsen).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses reducing the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket if the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket does not show a decreasing behavior when the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket has reached a predetermined value (“stopping the centrifugal, when purging is too slow”, para. [0044], Nielsen).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses preventing the application of washing liquid or steam until the purging of the liquid phase from the centrifugal basket shows a decreasing behavior (“washing liquid or steam may be added to the fill-mass when the purging of the liquid phase has reduced to a level where added washing liquid or steam will not blend with the remaining liquid phase of the fill-mass”, para. [0016], Nielsen).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses a computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 22 when said computer program product is run on a computer or run on a microprocessor (a control unit may be used to analyze the detected signal or detected signals from one or more sensors (sound and/or vibration sensors) as well as to control the appliance of washing liquid/spray water or steam added to the fill-mass via the washing arrangement 122, para. [0056], Nielsen; at least one processor 112 may be included in a computing device that executes instructions that are stored in a memory as software or firmware, para. [0039], Marro).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses a centrifuge system for separation of solid and liquid phases, the centrifugal system comprising a centrifugal casing (outer housing 109, Fig. 1, Nielsen) surrounding a centrifugal basket (100, Fig. 1, Nielsen), wherein purged liquid hits an interior surface portion of the centrifugal casing (“During rotation of the centrifugal basket 100 purging liquid penetrates through the basket wall 101 before hitting the inner side of the outer housing 109”, Fig. 1, Nielsen), and wherein an accelerometer is secured to said centrifugal casing (“a sensor 124 in the form of a sound sensor or vibration sensor is arranged on an exterior surface portion of the outer housing 109, para. [0055], Nielsen; the vibration sensor may correspond to an accelerometer, para. [0022], Marro), and wherein the centrifugal system further comprises a control unit for performing the method according to claim 22 (a control unit may be used to analyze the detected signal or detected signals from one or more sensors (sound and/or vibration sensors) as well as to control the appliance of washing liquid/spray water or steam added to the fill-mass via the washing arrangement 122, para. [0056], Nielsen; at least one processor 112 may be included in a computing device that executes instructions that are stored in a memory as software or firmware, para. [0039], Marro).
Claim 25-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Marro, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Olcott (U.S. Patent No. 2,152,562).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Nielsen and Marro does not disclose wherein the safe temporal range is adapted to terminate when a predetermined condition with respect to at least a rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is met.
Olcott discloses analogous art related to purging and washing solids in a centrifugal, wherein the safe temporal range is adapted to terminate when a predetermined condition with respect to at least a rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is met (“the basket attains the desired reduced speed at the time, or immediately after, the supply of washing fluid is cut off”, page 1, right column, lines 46-48). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to terminate the washing liquid/steam of the combination of Nielson and Marro when the basket reaches a predetermined rotational speed as taught by Olcott for the purpose of preventing the recrystallization of the sugar in the washing liquid retained by the sugar and the bonding together of the sugar crystals thereby (page 1, right column, lines 27-34, Olcott).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nielsen, Marro, and Olcott discloses wherein the predetermined condition with respect to at least the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is met when a certain rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is reached (“the basket attains the desired reduced speed at the time, or immediately after, the supply of washing fluid is cut off”, page 1, right column, lines 46-48, Olcott).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Nielsen, Marro, and Olcott discloses wherein the certain rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is below a given rotational speed (“the basket attains the desired reduced speed at the time, or immediately after, the supply of washing fluid is cut off”, page 1, right column, lines 46-47, Olcott).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Nielsen, Marro, and Olcott discloses wherein the given rotational speed of the centrifugal basket is around 900 rpm (when the washing liquid is applied, the speed is about 950 rpm, when the washing fluid is cut off and drawn off, the speed is about 900 rpm, page 1, right column, lines 38-54, Olcott).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Nielsen and Marro does not expressly disclose wherein the safe temporal range is extended or shortened by varying the rotation speed of the centrifugal basket to obtain an optimal separation of the solid and liquid phases using a predetermined amount of washing liquid or steam.
Olcott discloses wherein the safe temporal range is extended or shortened by varying the rotation speed of the centrifugal basket to obtain an optimal separation of the solid and liquid phases using a predetermined amount of washing liquid or steam (“the period required for the reduction of the speed of the basket being made sufficiently long to permit of the desired amount of washing liquid being applied”, page 1, right column, lines 42-46). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend or shorten the duration of the safe temporal range in the combination of Nielsen and Marro by varying the basket’s rotational speed as taught by Olcott, for the purpose of preventing the recrystallization of the sugar in the washing liquid retained by the sugar and the bonding together of the sugar crystals thereby (page 1, right column, lines 27-34, Olcott).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Marro, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of WO 2016170047 (Thelen) and Olcott.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Nielsen and Marro does not disclose wherein a) the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket, during a portion of the safe temporal range, is maintained at an essentially constant speed over a predetermined time interval in order to extend the duration of the safe temporal range, or wherein b) the rotational acceleration of the centrifugal basket, during a portion of the safe temporal range, is reduced over a predetermined time interval in order to extend the duration of the safe temporal range.
Thelen discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge for solid-liquid separation, wherein the rotational speed of the centrifugal basket, during a portion of the safe temporal range, is maintained at an essentially constant speed over a predetermined time interval in order to extend the duration of the safe temporal range (between the first acceleration phase and the second acceleration phase is an intermediate spin phase during which the speed is kept constant over time, claim 11; the application of washing water 35 is initiated between operating points 53 and 54, Fig. 3; between the third operating point 53 and a fourth operating point 54, the centrifuge is driven at a constant speed, page 11 lines 30-32 of machine translation). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of the combination of Nielsen and Marrow with maintaining a constant rotational speed of the centrifugal basket as taught by Thelen for the purpose of washing the crystals following centrifugation (page 2 lines 17-28 of machine translation, Thelen).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Marro, as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Roberts (U.S. Patent No. 2,347,157).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nielsen and Marro discloses wherein the first controllable valve is switched from the first position to the second position (“controllable valve”, para. [0024] and [0060], Nielsen), but does not disclose when a predetermined amount of wash water has been applied to the content of the centrifugal basket.
Roberts discloses a batch sugar centrifugal having a ring valve syrup separator that separates green syrup from wash syrup, in which the syrup separator is actuated a predetermined time after the start of washing (“to recover any wash syrup of such purity the syrup separator (curb or ring valve type) may have to be actuated as late as 10 to 15 seconds after the start of washing”, page 1, right column, lines 2-5); wash water is released under fixed pressure, with the wash duration corresponding to a quantity of wash liquid, Examples I and III). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of the combination of Nielsen and Marro with the control valve switch step taught by Roberts for the purpose of having the initial wash effluent carrying residual impurities diverted with the green syrup and to recover a wash syrup of high purity (page 1, right column, lines 2-6, Roberts).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Marro, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Olcott and GB 2393672 (Grimwood).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Nielsen and Marro does not disclose wherein the safe temporal range is extended or shorted by varying the rotation speed of the centrifugal basket to obtain a predetermined separation of the solid and liquid phases using the smallest amount of washing liquid or steam.
Grimwood discloses limiting the wash volume to the minimum needed to achieve a target solids purity (“One feature of this invention is thus to give an immediate signal to limit the wash volume to the minimum needed to achieve the required solids purity that adjusts automatically to the variations in the process parameters”, page 9 lines 14-16).
Olcott discloses varying the basket’s rotational speed reduction so that its duration accommodates a desired amount of washing liquid (“the period required for the reduction of the speed of the basket being made sufficiently long to permit of the desired amount of washing liquid being applied”, page 1, right column, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grimwood’s objective of minimizing wash liquid volume with Olcott’s technique of varying the period required for the reduction of the speed of the basket to control the wash liquid amount needed for a given separation result, and to apply this combination to the method of combined Nielsen and Marro, so that washing/spraying of the fill-mass using liquid or steam may be started at an optimal point in time whereby washing liquid/spray water or steam may be saved and consequential dissolution of an otherwise high-quality product may be avoided (col. 8 lines 31-35, Nielsen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
