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 Objections
Claims 2-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the limitation “the opening” in line 2 (page 4) and line 1 (page 5) should be changed to “the opening of the holly cylindrical body” to provide distinction between “opening” (of line 5) and “through opening” (of line 9).
In claim 5, the limitation “intended to evacuation of the coalescent phase” in line 5 should be corrected to “intended to evacuate the coalescent phase” or “intended for evacuation of the coalescent phase”.
In Claims 2-6 and 8-10, examiner recommends amending “The separation device” in line 1 to “The coalescence separation device” to maintain consistency.
In claim 7, the limitation “conveys the incoming flow or fluid” in line 5 on page 6 should be changed to “conveys the incoming flow of fluid”.
In claim 10, the limitation “intended to evacuation of the coalescent phase” in line 4 should be corrected to “intended to evacuate the coalescent phase” or “intended for evacuation of the coalescent phase”.
In claim 10, the limitation “the profile” in line 3 should be changed to “the curved axial-symmetrical profile” to keep limitation consistent throughout the claims.
In claim 11, the limitation “means of passage channels” in line 5 on page 7 should be changed to “means of the passage channels” to provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the fluid inlet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be changed to “a fluid inlet”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the distance from the opening of a plane containing a major base of the frustoconical peripheral portion is smaller than the distance from the opening of a plane containing a minor base of the frusto-conical peripheral portion, the distances being measured along the axis (A) of the cylindrical body” renders the claim indefinite because “the distance” is not clearly define. The cited limitations fail to provide two reference points between which the distance is measured. It recites a first reference point “from the opening of a plane containing a major base of the frustoconical peripheral portion”, however, fails to recite a second reference point required to measure the claimed distance. It appears that the claimed distance is the distance 60 disclosed on page 8 of the specification, however, a clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the opening” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to “the opening of the holly cylindrical body” (of line 5) or “through opening” (of line 9).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal surface" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the opening” in lines 2 on page 4 and line 1 on page 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to “the opening of the holly cylindrical body” (claim 1 - line 5) or “through opening” (claim 1 - line 9).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the areas" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the following coalescing sheets" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the major base circumference" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the collecting" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coalescent phase" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the major base circumference" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the opening” in lines 3 and 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to “the opening of the holly cylindrical body” (of line 5) or “through opening” (of line 9).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the membranes" in line 5 (on page 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear where these membranes are positioned in the claimed device.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the incoming flow of fluid" in line 2 (on page 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the incoming flow of fluid" in line 2 (on page 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flow of fluid" in line 5 (on page 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the major radius" and “the minor radius” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inlet distance" in line 2, “the exit distance” in line 4, “the same membranes” in line 5, “the passage area” in line 6”, and “the exit radial velocity” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the fluid exit edge" in line 2, “the collecting” in line 3, “the coalescent phase” in line 3, and “the profile” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the longitudinal velocity" in line 1 (on page 7), “the exit” in line 3 (on page 7), and “the outlet” in line 4 (on page 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The above cited 112 issues could not be resolved during the interview with the attorney of record, J. Robert Dean, Jr.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 7 and 11 are allowable over prior arts Clarke (US 5840198), Andresussi (US 2013/0292327), and Mohr (US 5068035).
Clarke teaches a separation apparatus for separating two fluids having different densities or specific gravities (abstract), the apparatus (refer fig. 3) comprising a hollow cylindrical body (310) having a longitudinal axis (refer fig. 3), having an opening for fluid inlet (refer fig. 3), and a baffle arrangement (313) having a circular through opening (refer 352) surrounds the hollow cylindrical body (310). Clarke also teaches using a plurality of baffles (refer fig. 6) and discloses that baffles are helically shaped. It is evident from fig. 1 and fig. 3 that outer periphery (major base) of baffles is closer to wall of vessel containing the baffles therefore teaching that the distance between the outer periphery of baffles and the wall of vessel is smaller than distance between inner periphery of baffles and the wall of the vessel.
Clarke does not teach that the coalescing sheets being arranged parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another to form passage channels for the fluid, the central plane portion of each coalescing sheet being at least partially protruding with respect to the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical body so as to intercept a portion of fluid flowing inside the hollow cylindrical body and divert it radially inside the passage channels towards the frusto-conical peripheral portions as recited in claim 1. Clark also does not teach a plurality of axial-symmetrical trays concentrically arranged and generated by plane curves having a substantially elongated "J" shape and spaced apart from one another so as to form passage channels between the membranes, the passage channels forming concentric inlet mouths having a circular crown section and intercepting the incoming flow of fluid at an inlet of the separation device, having a direction parallel to the symmetry axis of the axial-symmetrical trays, and conveys the incoming flow or fluid towards exits with prevalently radial direction component of the flow of fluid as recited in claim 7.
Andresussi teaches an apparatus (1) for the coalescence-separation of a mixture comprising two fluid phases mutually immiscible other and with a different specific density (abstract), and a set of coalescence plates (8) which is housed inside said tubular body (2), wherein each of the coalescence plates (8) has a flow plate (9) of the mixture which is tilted by an angle a with respect to a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (A) of the tubular body (2) (refer fig. 2). However, Andresussi fails to remedy deficiencies of Clarke.
Mohr teaches a coalescing plate packing system for use in separating immiscible components of different densities mixed in a fluid, the packing system being used in a vessel having a fluid inlet, a lighter component outlet and a heavier components outlet, the packing system being formed of a stack of spaced apart coalescing plate each having orthogonally arranged corrugations running both laterally and longitudinally (abstract, fig. 1). Mohr also fails to remedy deficiencies of Clarke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777