DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
644
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Election of 30 MAY 2026
Applicant’s election without traverse is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image2.png
508
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pending Elected Claim Tree
PNG
media_image3.png
407
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-11,13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 specifies “a plurality of baffle components” and then goes on to specify, “wherein at least one of the baffle components comprises a vane angled with respect to the axis so as to impede the passage of fluid past the baffle”. Axiomatically, this language intends that there are “baffle components” that are NOT “angled”. The claim specifies nothing about the geometric characteristics of the “plurality of baffle components”, other than to say that they are “arranged in series at least part way around an axis”. It is unclear where that “axis” (a line) extends or is located. In this regard, it is noted that the claim later adds a “cylindrical chamber”, yet the “axis” is not specified relationally, relative to the “cylindrical chamber”.
The last line of claim 1 specifies, “wherein the vanes are angled toward the upper region in a rotational direction”. This recitation lacks clear positive antecedent basis. Previously, in claim 1, “wherein at least one of the baffle components comprises a vane angled with respect to the axis”, and not a plurality of “vanes” as indicated by the plural use of the term “vanes” with an “s”. It is unclear how these “vanes” relate to the “at least one of the baffle components [that] comprises a vane angled with respect to the axis”, or if they are one in the same.
It is unclear what constitutes the specified “rotational direction” or how it is generated. Structure that would generate such a flow is not claimed. It is unclear from where this “rotational direction”, assumed a “flow”, emanates, or what structure causes or facilitates this “flow” that has a “rotational direction”.
It is unclear what is intended by “the vanes are angled toward the upper region in a rotational direction”. It is unclear how these “vanes” relate to the claimed “axis”.
The only disclosed “plurality of baffle components” are ALL “angled” in one manner or another. It is unclear what geometric orientations or structural relationships are embraced by, or intended by those “baffle components” that are NOT “angled”.
PNG
media_image4.png
545
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In claim 8, it is unclear what specific structure facilitates or permit, “to allow the extent to which the two or more of plurality of baffle components overlap each other to be adjusted during installation of the baffle within the cylindrical chamber.” The language of claim 8 is NOT seen to invoke 112(f).
In claims 16-18, “the vanes” lacks clear, positive antecedent basis.
In claim 17, it is unclear from where, or how “the vanes are cantilevered”.
In claim 18, it is unclear from where, or how “the vanes are supported at their radial outer end[s]”.
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.
Claims 1-9,11,13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 specifies “a plurality of baffle components” and then goes on to specify, “wherein at least one of the baffle components comprises a vane angled with respect to the axis so as to impede the passage of fluid past the baffle”. Axiomatically, this language intends that there are “baffle components” that are NOT “angled”. The only disclosed “plurality of baffle components” are ALL “angled” in one manner or another. There does not appear to be any disclosure of “baffle components” that are NOT “angled” which are 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9,11,13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for “angled” “vanes”, it does not reasonably provide enablement for “baffle components” that are NOT “angled” or “vanes”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.
The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.
Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement is whether the experimentation needed to practice the invention is undue or unreasonable? The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Consideration of the Wands Factors
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims in this application, is very broad, when considered in view of its enabled disclosure (i.e., a hydrodynamic vortex separator with a plurality of angled vane baffles).
The language appearing in the body of the claims, at least “separator” in the preamble and “baffle components”, in the body of the claims is extremely broad. Beyond an “angled vane”, there does not appear to be any indication or disclosure of what structures aside from “angled vanes” would make suitable “baffle components”, frustrating search and examination of this application. A broad claim requires a correspondingly more detailed disclosure to enable the entire scope of the claims. Applicant’s disclosure does not enable anything beyond the plurality of angled vanes disclosed.
(B) The nature of the invention
The disclosure appears to comprise an invention mechanical in nature. While cases mechanical in nature may sometimes present simpler analysis, the disclosure should not leave the potential infringer in the dark, and forced to guess as to what “baffle components” other than “angled vanes” are intended, or were envisioned by Applicant. Applicant’s scant disclosure of “angled vanes” and nothing else, weighs against a finding of enablement with respect to this Wands factor, and anything other than the use of a plurality of “angled vanes”.
(C) The state of the prior art
While Applicant briefly discusses the state of the art in the specification, that state of the art does not fill in the gaps that would enable one skilled in the art to arrive at anything more than “angled vanes”, in view of the instant disclosure.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
One of ordinary skill in the art would have at least some knowledge of mechanical technology. However, one skilled in the art would be unable to arrive at the claimed invention having Applicant’s disclosure before him, absent more detail, as to what minimal physical structure Applicant intends beyond “angled vanes”.
(E) The level of predictability in the art
The "predictability or lack thereof" in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known, to arrive at, or result in the claimed invention. While the claims are drawn to a simpler mechanical “separator” as recited in the preamble of the claims, one skilled in the art would not be able to predictably extrapolate beyond the disclosed “angled vanes” to breathe life into the expression, or an alternative meaning into “baffle components” as nothing else is disclosed or suggested as an alternative for the disclosed “angled vanes”, resulting in an insurmountable level of predictability with respect to anything other than “angled vanes” and this factor weighs against a finding of enablement for anything other than a plurality of angled vanes.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. The inventor does not appear to provide any direction with respect to the intended meaning of “baffle components” beyond “angled vanes”. Accordingly, the scope of the claims should be, so limited.
(G) The existence of working examples
There do not appear to be any working examples involving anything other than “angled vanes” in the disclosure. This Wands factor weighs heavily against a finding of enablement with respect to anything other than “angled vanes”.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The quantity of experimentation factor concerns whether the disclosure provides enough direction so that a skilled artisan can achieve the invention without excessive, non-routine guesswork. It is unclear what other structural configurations would work. In this application, no amount of experimentation could provide the requisite information necessary to assist one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at “baffle components” comprising anything other than “angled vanes”, or how to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant, originally filed disclosure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,6,10,11,13,16,17,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/2) as being anticipated by ORANJE (US 5,224,976). Explanatory text or the reference numerals of ORANJE have been mapped in to claim 1, to demonstrate claim limitation correspondence.
(Currently Amended) A separator comprising:
a baffle comprising a plurality of baffle components (5) arranged in series at least part way around an axis, wherein each of the plurality of baffle components comprises:
a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion (These “connecting portion” limitations are met by any arbitrary two portions of the helicoidal blades 5 or vanes. Since they are all circularly connected, they all have at least two “connecting portions”, and thus meet this limitation), wherein the first connecting portion of each of the plurality of baffle components is connectable to the first or second connecting portion of a respective first adjacent baffle component of the plurality of baffle components,
wherein the second connecting portion of each of the plurality of baffle components is connectable to the first or second connecting portion of a respective second adjacent baffle component of the plurality of baffle components, and
wherein at least one of the baffle components comprises a vane angled (as shown in the figures) with respect to the axis so as to impede the passage of fluid past the baffle; and
a cylindrical chamber (2) comprising:
an upper region (1); and
a lower region (6),
wherein the baffle is disposed between the upper region and the lower region and impedes the passage of fluid past the baffle from the upper region to the lower region, and
wherein the vanes are angled (as shown in the figures) toward the upper region in a rotational direction.
Regarding the dependent claims: Claim 2 – as shown in Figs 1-2; Claims 3,6 – opposing structures 15, at ends of blades 5 are seen to meet the limitations specified in claims 3 and 6; Claim 10 – as shown in Figs 1-2; Claim 11 – as shown in Figs 1-2; Claim 13 – as shown in Figs 1-2; Claim 16 – as shown in Figs 1-2; Claim 17 – the blades/vanes 5 are shown to be cantilevered from structure 12 in Figs 1-2; Claim 19 – as shown to be identical in Figs 1-2.
PNG
media_image5.png
918
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
934
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1,3,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ORANJE (US 5,224,976).
Claims 1 and 3 are seen to be anticipated by ORANJE as discussed above, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Claim 7 specifies:
7. (Currently Amended) The separator of claim 3, wherein the first and second flanges curve toward the vane in a distal direction.
Structures 15, which are seen to meet the limitation of “flanges” appear to be curved in Figure 2, especially, the center one located at the lowermost portion of blade 5. Alternatively, should if be established that ORANJE does not meet the specific claimed “curved” structure, it is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to curve to the structure 15 or ORANJE in the manner claimed, in order to facilitate installation/construction, or manipulate fluid flows as desired.
Claim 8 specifies:
8. (Currently Amended) The separator of claim 1, wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion of two or more of the plurality of baffle components are configured to allow the extent to which the two or more of plurality of baffle components overlap each other to be adjusted during installation of the baffle within the cylindrical chamber.
While it is unclear what structure this language intends, ORANJE discloses “overlap” of “baffle components” or helicoidal blades 5 or “vanes”, as clearly depicted in Figure 2, and discussed at column 3, lines 35-45. Even if it were established that ORANJE does not meet whatever specific structure is arguably intended by this functional language, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously envisioned and devised some mechanism to adjust the “baffle components” of ORANJE relative to each other or in order to facilitate installation and/or optimize separation.
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.
Claims 1,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORANJE (US 5,224,976).
Claim 1 is seen to be anticipated by ORANJE as discussed above, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Claim 18 which depends from claim 1, specifies, “the vanes are supported at their radially outer end[s]”, which is not taught by ORANJE as applied above. It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to alternatively support the “vanes” from their radially outer end, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results associated with this mounting location/configuration, since the “vanes” must obviously be supported by something.
Claim 20 which depends from claim 1, specifies, “the baffle components are formed by a molding process”, which is not taught by ORANJE as applied above. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of the fact that it is notoriously well known to make components of separators by any of the various known molding processes, and would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to have made the “baffle components” of ORANJE by a known molding process, in order to facilitate manufacture thereof.
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, the claimed “rotational direction” as recited at least in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should 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.
Conclusion
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 from 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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 1763
Prosecution Insights