OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 form(s) submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 12 DEC 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
Figures 2b and 4a contain lead lines that cross each other. From 37 CFR 1.84(q): Lead lines must not cross each other.
Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures 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, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be 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 centered 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 sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
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 in the specification.
The substitute abstract 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 (MPEP 606.01). The title should mention the sealing arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 16 is 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16: this claim recites a second cooling system yet claim 1 fails to recite a first cooling system leading to confusion regarding the quantity of cooling systems being claimed. Note claim 14 that does recite a first cooling system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZUCCATO (US 4810240).
ZUCCATO discloses a centrifugal separator (see figures 1, 2) comprising a bowl (2) arranged to be rotated about a rotational axis (central axis) extending along an axial extension, a spindle (not shown) arranged at a first axial end portion (lower end portion, not shown) of the bowl (2) and arranged to rotate the bowl (2) about the rotational axis, a housing (only part is shown in the upper part of figure 1, i.e., the conical outer housing seen just above reference character 23 in Figure 1) at least partially enclosing the bowl (2), a stationary liquid passage device (the fixed housing above 13-15 with inlet tube 1) arranged at a second axial end portion (upper end portion, see figure 2) of the bowl (2), and a sealing arrangement (10 - 18), wherein the sealing arrangement (10 - 18) forms an interface between the bowl (2) and the stationary liquid passage device (1, 6, 7, 8), wherein a first liquid path (1) extends concentrically with the rotational axis between the stationary liquid passage device and the bowl (2) and a second liquid path (6, 7) extends radially outside the first liquid path (1) between the stationary liquid passage device and the bowl (2), wherein the stationary liquid passage device (being a stationary separate structural element) is releasably connected to the housing (see figure 1), wherein the sealing arrangement (10 - 18) comprises a first seal (12, 15) between the first liquid path (1) and the second liquid path (6), the first seal (12, 15) extending concentrically with and around the rotational axis (see figure 1), wherein the sealing arrangement (10 - 18) comprises a second seal (11, 14) between the second liquid path (6) and a space radially outside the second liquid path (6), the second seal (11, 14) extending concentrically with and around the rotational axis, wherein the first seal (12, 15) comprises a first seal member (12) arranged in the stationary liquid passage device and a first sealing surface arranged in the bowl (2), the first seal member (12) having a first axial end face (see figures 1, 2), the first axial end face and the first sealing surface being configured to be positioned in sealing abutment (see figures 1, 2), wherein the second seal (11, 14) comprises a second seal member (11) arranged in the stationary liquid passage device and a second sealing surface arranged in the bowl (2), the second seal member (11) having a second axial end face (see figures 1, 2), the second axial end face and the second sealing surface being configured to be positioned in sealing abutment (see figures 1, 2), wherein the second seal member (11) is separate from the first seal member (12), and wherein the first and second seal members (12, 11), being separate or discrete structural elements, are separable from the first and second sealing surfaces together with a release of the stationary liquid passage device from the housing (see figure 1);
wherein the stationary liquid passage device comprises a stop surface (the horizontal interface between 10, 13; 11, 14; and 12, 15 in Figure 1 that allows the first and second seal members to be separable from the first and second sealing surfaces together with a release of the stationary liquid passage device from the housing;
wherein the first sealing surface is arranged in a first plane and the second sealing surface is arranged in a second plane, the first and second planes extending perpendicularly to the rotational axis, and wherein the first and second planes are arranged at an axial distance from each other within a range of 0-25 mm - note seals 10-12 are arranged in an upper plane while seals 13-15 are arranged in a closely arranged lower plane, the planes being perpendicular to the rotational axis along 1 - Figures 1-2;
seals 10-12 being biased toward seals 13-15 by resilient members in the form of springs 16-18;
the seals 10-12 are arranged in respective concentric axial slots in the stationary liquid passage device and the first axial end faces of these seals are arranged outside an opening of a respective slot - Figures 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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 instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the above guidance, claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO in view of AOKI et al. (US 2019/0381519 A1).
ZUCCATO does not disclose the retaining ring members. AOKI et al. discloses a centrifuge device including abutting seal members 661 and 662 (Figure 6) with adjacent axial slots in which retaining ring members 665 and 666 are disposed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the seal members of ZUCCATO with ring members inserted into slots adjacent the seal members as taught by AOKI et al. for the purposes of retaining the seal members in place and providing a liquid-tight state proximate the seal members ¶ [0089], [0091].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO in view of AOKI et al. (US 2019/0381519 A1) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of HILDING et al. (US 2020/0016610 A1).
Modified ZUCCATO does not disclose the recited sleeve. HILDING et al. discloses a centrifuge including abutting seal ring members 5 and 7; a sleeve (the discrete L-shaped cross-hatched element disposed radially outside of 7 in Figure 3) removably connected to the stationary liquid passage device 6; wherein the body of the stationary liquid passage device 6 and the sleeve delimit a portion of the first liquid path 2 by containing inlet path 39 therein.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided modified ZUCCATO with a sleeve as disclosed by HILDING et al. for the purpose of contacting a portion of the seal ring member to retain the seal ring member in place.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO in view of HILDING et al. (US 2020/0016610 A1).
ZUCCATO does not disclose the recited cooling systems. HILDING et al. discloses a centrifuge including abutting seal ring members 5 and 7; a first seal ring cooling system described in [0031], [0058] with a recess/chamber 11 in the end face of seal ring member 7 and an axial and angled passage within the seal ring member 7 in fluid communication with liquid channel 15 as seen in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided ZUCCATO with a cooling system as disclosed by HILDING et al. for the purpose of cooling the seal members via cooling fluid injected into the recess of the seal ring member ¶ [0093] - [0095], [0112].
Although HILDING et al. does not disclose a second cooling system, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In this instance, to provide a cooling system for each seal member in ZUCCATO to facilitate the cooling of each seal member would certainly not produce a new and unexpected result, rendering such duplication (i.e., duplicating and providing two or more of the HILDING et al. cooling systems in ZUCCATO, one per seal member) is well within the realm of obviousness.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO in view of KOREEDA et al. (US 4670002).
ZUCCATO does not disclose the single sealing element with liquid paths therethrough that forms at least part of an axial end of the bowl. KOREEDA et al. discloses a centrifuge with a bowl 2; a stationary liquid passage device 12 with a stationary sealing element 16 that abuts rotary sealing surfaces provided in a single sealing element 5; liquid paths 51 and 52 extend through the sealing element 5; and the sealing element 5 forms at least part of an axial end of the rotating bowl 2 - Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the rotary sealing element of ZUCCATO to be in the form of a single sealing element with liquid paths therethrough that forms at least part of an axial upper end of the bowl as taught by KOREEDA et al. for the purposes of reducing the number of parts required for the seal assembly and to communicate fluids through the sealing element that forms a closure for the upper end of the bowl per Figure 1 of KOREEDA et al.
* * *
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO (US 4810240) in view of HILDING et al. (US 2020/0016610 A1).
The prior art to ZUCCATO in view of HILDING et al. discloses the recited subject as claimed as outlined above. Assuming, arguendo, that said prior art does not disclose the seal members being separable from the corresponding sealing surfaces with a release of the stationary liquid passage device from the housing.
HILDING et al. discloses a centrifuge with a rotating bowl 20 within an outer housing 18 wherein the seal member 7 is separable from the corresponding sealing surface 5 with a release of the stationary liquid passage device 6 from the housing 18.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the centrifuge of ZUCCATO with the seal members thereof being separable from the corresponding sealing surfaces with a release of the stationary liquid passage device from the housing as taught by HILDING et al. for the purposes of making the seal assembly easy to assemble and disassemble on the separator in an axial manner such that the seal assembly is easy to mount or disassemble when fitted onto a centrifugal separator, which facilitates servicing of the centrifuge ¶ [0026], [0028], [0060], [0077], [0078], [0112].
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCCATO (US 4810240) in view of HILDING et al. (US 2020/0016610 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 9 above and further in view of AOKI et al. (US 2019/0381519 A1).
Modified ZUCCATO does not disclose the retaining ring members. AOKI et al. discloses a centrifuge device including abutting seal members 661 and 662 (Figure 6) with adjacent axial slots in which ring members 665 and 666 are disposed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the seal members of modified ZUCCATO with ring members inserted into slots adjacent the seal members as taught by AOKI et al. for the purposes of retaining the seal members in place and providing a liquid-tight state proximate the seal members ¶ [0089], [0091].
Modified ZUCCATO also does not disclose the recited sleeve. HILDING et al. discloses a centrifuge including abutting seal ring members 5 and 7; a sleeve (the discrete L-shaped cross-hatched element disposed radially outside of 7 in Figure 3) removably connected to the stationary liquid passage device 6; wherein the body of the stationary liquid passage device 6 and the sleeve delimit a portion of the first liquid path 2 by containing inlet path 39 therein.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided modified ZUCCATO with a sleeve as disclosed by HILDING et al. for the purposes of contacting a portion of the seal ring member to retain the seal ring member in place via the sleeve and to cool the seal members via cooling fluid injected into the recess of the seal ring member ¶ [0093] - [0095], [0112].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over ZUCCATO (US 4810240) in view of HILDING et al. (US 2020/0016610 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of KOREEDA et al. (US 4670002).
Modified ZUCCATO does not disclose the single sealing element with liquid paths therethrough that forms at least part of an axial end of the bowl. KOREEDA et al. discloses a centrifuge with a bowl 2; a stationary liquid passage device 12 with a stationary sealing element 16 that abuts rotary sealing surfaces provided in a single sealing element 5; liquid paths 51 and 52 extend through the sealing element 5; and the sealing element 5 forms at least part of an axial end of the rotating bowl 2 - Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the rotary sealing element of modified ZUCCATO to be in the form of a single sealing element with liquid paths therethrough that forms at least part of an axial upper end of the bowl as taught by KOREEDA et al. for the purposes of reducing the number of parts required for the seal assembly and to communicate fluids through the sealing element that forms a closure for the upper end of the bowl per Figure 1 of KOREEDA et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses various sealing arrangements for centrifuges and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 1 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights