DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3 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.
The recitation “partition plate” to describe what is depicted in figures 3 and 4 is considered misdescriptive and confusing, implying a single plate. Plates 27 and 28 depicted in these figures are two separate and distinct plates. Except for the assumed connection to Applicant’s separation container, they are not seen to be connected. Moreover, they are not even shown to be co-planar. While Applicant’s right to be a lexicographer is acknowledged, Applicant’s use of this claim language to claim the disclosed structure is aberrant to its ordinary and customary meaning. Therefore, the use of “separation plate” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 2, it is unclear how the conditional recitation, “wherein, in a case where …” limits the structure of the device being claimed. Does the introduction of the material being treated (i.e., “oil-water mixed liquid”) cause the “guide section” to move? Such a “limitation” is more appropriate in a process or method claim. The material being treated does not impart patentability to an apparatus or device claim. See MPEP Section 2115. Should Applicant persist along this line, the structure, independent of any conditional aspects, should be clearly, unambiguously and unconditionally claimed. The structure and location/orientation of the “guide section” relative to the other claimed components should be positively claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings Travers (U.S. 1,672,583) and Anderson (U.S. 4,064,054).
The reference numerals of Travers, referencing figures 1-2 are parenthetically mapped into the claims:
Claim 1. An oil-water separation device comprising:
a first chamber (9) and a second chamber (10) separated in a separation container;
a first discharge port (7) and a second discharge port (7) formed in the first chamber and the second chamber, respectively, on a side surface (1) of the separation container;
a partition plate configured to separate the first chamber and the second chamber, the partition plate including a lower partition plate (14) erected on a bottom surface (2) of the separation container and an upper partition plate (12) including a guide section that inclines from the first chamber toward the second chamber above the lower partition plate; and a communication section (15) between the lower partition plate and the upper partition plate configured to connect the first chamber and the second chamber to each other.
Claim 2. The oil-water separation device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where an oil-water mixed liquid is introduced into the first chamber, the guide section of the upper partition plate inclines downward from the first chamber toward the second chamber and extends to a position lower than an upper end of the lower partition plate.
Claim 3. The oil-water separation device according to claim 1, wherein the upper partition plate includes a partition section (12) disposed between the first discharge port (7) and the second discharge port (7) positioned on left and right sides in an up-down direction, and the inclined guide section continuously formed on a lower side of the partition section.
The underscored sections are not taught by Travers.
Anderson discloses an inclined portion 32, to aid in separation (col. 4, lines 30-60) of oil-water mixtures in a similar system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to employ an inclined section at the lower end of the upper partition plate of Travers, in order to aid in separation, as taught by Anderson.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a partition plate … including a lower partition plate erected on a bottom surface of the separation container and an upper partition plate” as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s figures 3 and 4 presently depict two separate and distinct, unconnected, offset (i.e., not co-planar) plates (i.e., 27 & 28). No new matter will be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776