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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 December 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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 acceptable.
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 1-11 and 17-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the “liquid feed mixture” of step a) is the same liquid feed mixture introduced in the preamble, or a different liquid feed mixture. Furthermore, in step d), said claim recites “discharging a sludge phase comprising said particles via said sludge outlets based on the determination of step b)”. It is unclear whether discharge is intended to be based on the particle flow rate determined in step b), or on the volume filled with particles determined in step c). Claim 12, which is the corresponding apparatus claim, recites initiating discharge “based on the determined volume filled with particles”. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the discharging a sludge phase comprising said particles via said sludge outlets based on the determination of step c), i.e., based on the volume filled with particles. Claims 2-11 and 17-20 are rejected for the same reason due to their dependency upon said claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether “the liquid feed mixture” in line 2 refers to “a liquid feed mixture” previously recited in line 2 of claim 1 or to “a liquid feed mixture” recited in line 17 of claim 1.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (U.S. Patent No. 10,022,729).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses a method of operating a centrifugal separator (1, Fig. 1) for separating at least one liquid phase and a sludge phase from a liquid feed mixture (col. 3 lines 9-20), wherein said centrifugal separator comprises a frame (hood 12, Fig. 1), a drive member (drive spindle 2, Fig. 1) and a centrifuge bowl (lower drum part 10 and drum cover 11, Fig. 1), wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the centrifuge bowl in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation (col. 3 lines 10-11), and wherein the centrifuge bowl encloses a separation space (space containing disc pack 14) and a sludge space (solid-matter collecting chamber 8, Fig. 1), wherein the separation space comprises a stack of separation discs (disk pack 14, Fig. 1) arranged coaxially around the axis of rotation and wherein said sludge space is arranged radially outside said stack of separation discs (Fig. 1), wherein the centrifuge bowl further comprises an inlet (4, Fig. 1) for receiving the liquid feed mixture, at least one liquid outlet (13, Fig. 1) for a separated liquid phase, and sludge outlets (discharge openings 5, Fig. 1) for a separated sludge phase arranged at a periphery of the centrifuge bowl, and wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) supplying a liquid feed mixture to be separated to the inlet (col. 3 lines 25-26); b) determining a particle flow rate of the liquid feed mixture being supplied in step a) (col. 3 lines 63-66); determining the proportion of solid matter that has collected in the solid-matter collecting chamber (col. 2 lines 15-33); and d) discharging a sludge phase comprising said particles via said sludge outlets based on the determination of step c), wherein the discharge is of a specific volume or at a specific time point (col. 4 lines 36-48, the specific volume is “80% filling of the solid matter collecting chamber”). While Hartmann does not explicitly state “c) determining a volume filled with particles within the centrifuge bowl based on the measurements of step b)”, Hartmann teaches that from the accumulation of the measured values by the Coriolis flowmeter, the level of filling of the solid-matter collecting chamber of the drum can be determined (col. 2 lines 41-47). The “level of filling” is related to volume, and the “cumulative value – preferably a mass value or a value proportional to the mass value” is compared to a limiting value that “corresponds to an 80% filling of the solid matter collecting chamber with solid matter” (col. 4 lines 36-42). Under BRI, and given that mass and volume are directed related through density (which can also be measured by the Coriolis sensor, col. 4 lines 27-31), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that Hartmann’s mass accumulation determination as functionally equivalent to and easily converted to a volume determination. This is no more than conventional conversion between metrics.
Regarding claim 2, Hartmann discloses wherein the discharge of step d) is of a volume that is less than a volume of the sludge space (“80% filling of the solid matter collecting chamber with solid matter”, col. 4 lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 3, Hartmann discloses wherein the discharge of step d) is at a time point that is before the determined volume filled with particles in step c) is larger than a volume of the sludge space (“the solid matter must not reach the edge of the disk stack. If, therefore, the mass of solid matter value determined exceeds a predefined limiting value—for example determined during trial operation—emptying is initiated in order to empty the solid-matter collecting chamber”, col. 2 lines 1-14).
Claims 4, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (U.S. Patent No. 10,022,729) in view of Mackel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,040,076, hereinafter Mackel).
Regarding claims 4, 18, and 19, Hartmann does not disclose wherein the particle flow rate is determined by measuring the turbidity and the flow rate of the liquid feed mixture being supplied in step a).
Mackel discloses analogous art related to a method of operating a centrifugal separator (1, Fig. 1), wherein the particle flow rate is determined by measuring the turbidity and the flow rate of the liquid feed mixture being supplied in step a) (col. 6 line 57 – col. 7 line 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Coriolis sensor in the method of Hartmann for the sensor taught by Hess for the purpose of sensing solids parameters in the feed for discharging at the centrifuge outlets. Such a modification constitutes a simple substitution of one known element for another or the application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), Example B.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein step c) is performed by integrating the determined particle flow rate over time (claims 3 and 4, Hartmann).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein the volume filled with particles within the centrifuge bowl is determined continuously during operation of the centrifugal separator (“[a]s long as a limiting value has not been reached, steps 100 and 200 are repeatedly run though again”, col. 4 lines 43-45, Hartmann).
Regarding claim 9, Hartmann does not disclose measuring the turbidity of a separated liquid phase and discharging a sludge phase via said sludge outlets if the measured turbidity is above a threshold value.
Mackel discloses measuring the turbidity of a separated liquid phase (sensor 22 is “[a]rranged at or in the outlet 13 of the clear phase”, col. 6 lines 38-40) and discharge a sludge phase via said sludge outlets if the measured turbidity is above a threshold value (“closing discharge openings when the degree of turbidity measured by the photocell exceeds a certain limit value”, col. 1 lines 27-32). 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 Hartmann with Mackel’s outlet turbidity sensor for the purpose of having a back-up or redundant monitoring for unexpected readings or process variations.
Regarding claim 10, Hartmann does not disclose wherein the liquid feed mixture comprises yeast particles and wherein the yeast flow rate is determined in step b), the yeast volume within the centrifuge bowl is determined in step c), and wherein a sludge phase comprising yeast is discharged in step d).
Mackel discloses that the separator is used for clarification of natural products “such as a cider or must to be clarified or a fruit or vegetable juice or a beer or the like” (col. 3 lines 16-21). The instant specification also confirms that centrifugal beer clarification is directed to removal of yeast (page 17 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Hartmann method to a yeast containing liquid feed mixture, as suggested by Mackel, since beer/yeast clarification is a known application of this type of disc stack centrifuge.
Regarding claim 12, Hartmann discloses a centrifuge separator (1, Fig. 1) for separating at least one liquid phase and a sludge phase from a liquid feed mixture (col. 3 lines 9-20) comprising, a frame (hood 12, Fig. 1), a drive member (drive spindle 2, Fig. 1) and a centrifuge bowl (lower drum part 10 and drum cover 11, Fig. 1), wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the centrifuge bowl in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation (col. 3 lines 10-11), and wherein the centrifuge bowl encloses a separation space (space containing disc pack 14) and a sludge space (solid-matter collecting chamber 8, Fig. 1), wherein the separation space comprises a stack of separation discs (disk pack 14, Fig. 1) arranged coaxially around the axis of rotation and wherein said sludge space is arranged radially outside said stack of separation discs (Fig. 1), wherein the centrifuge bowl further comprises an inlet (4, Fig. 1) for receiving the liquid feed mixture, at least one liquid outlet (13, Fig. 1) for a separated liquid phase, and sludge outlets (discharge openings 5, Fig. 1) for a separated sludge phase arranged at a periphery of the centrifuge bowl, a control unit (evaluation and control unit 9) configured for determining a particle flow rate of the liquid feed mixture (via Coriolis sensor 20), determining the proportion of solid matter that has collected in the solid-matter collecting chamber (col. 2 lines 15-33), and discharging a sludge phase comprising said particles via said sludge outlets based on the determination of step c), wherein the discharge is of a specific volume or at a specific time point (col. 4 lines 36-48, the specific volume is “80% filling of the solid matter collecting chamber”). Hartmann does not expressly disclose a turbidity sensor arranged upstream of said inlet for measuring the turbidity of the liquid feed mixture to be separated, or a control unit configured for determining particle flow rate based on a measured turbidity.
Mackel discloses a turbidity sensor (3, Fig. 1) arranged upstream of said inlet for measuring the turbidity of the liquid feed mixture to be separated. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Macke’s turbidity sensor for Hartmann’s Coriolis sensor, for the purpose of sensing solids parameters in the feed for discharging at the centrifuge outlets. Such a modification constitutes a simple substitution of one known element for another or the application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), Example B.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein the control unit is configured for determining the particle flow rate of the liquid feed mixture based on a measured turbidity of said turbidity sensor and a measured flow rate of said liquid feed mixture (col. 6 line 57 – col. 7 line 2, Mackel).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein the control unit is configured for determining the volume filled with particles within the centrifuge bowl by integrating the particle flow rate over time (claims 3 and 4, Hartmann).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine the volume filled with particles within the centrifuge bowl continuously during operation of the centrifugal separator (“[a]s long as a limiting value has not been reached, steps 100 and 200 are repeatedly run though again”, col. 4 lines 43-45, Hartmann).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel discloses wherein the discharge of step d) is at a time point that is before the determined volume filled with particles in step c) is larger than a volume of the sludge space (“the solid matter must not reach the edge of the disk stack. If, therefore, the mass of solid matter value determined exceeds a predefined limiting value—for example determined during trial operation—emptying is initiated in order to empty the solid-matter collecting chamber”, col. 2 lines 1-14, Hartmann).
Claims 5, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann in view of Mackel, and further in view of Andelie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,576,399, hereinafter Andelie).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel does not disclose wherein the particle flow rate is determined by using a calibration function of the turbidity as a function of particle concentration in the liquid feed mixture.
Andelie discloses wherein the particle flow rate is determined by using a calibration function of the turbidity as a function of particle concentration in the liquid feed mixture (“in order to be able to assign a solids concentration to a turbidity value, a calibration must be performed”, col. 1 lines 40-48; Fig. 4a-c; col. 10 lines 21-51). 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 Hartmann and Mackel with the turbidity to concentration calibration as taught by Andelie for the purpose of obtaining solids concentration (col. 1 lines 40-48, Andelie).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hartmann, Mackel, and Andelie discloses wherein the turbidity is measured as light absorption of the liquid feed mixture (col. 6 lines 47-55, Mackel).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hartmann and Mackel does not disclose wherein the control unit is configured for determining the particle flow rate by using a calibration function of the turbidity as a function of particle concentration in the liquid feed mixture.
Andelie discloses wherein the control unit is configured for determining the particle flow rate by using a calibration function of the turbidity as a function of particle concentration in the liquid feed mixture (“in order to be able to assign a solids concentration to a turbidity value, a calibration must be performed”, col. 1 lines 40-48; Fig. 4a-c; col. 10 lines 21-51). 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 separator of the combination of Hartmann and Mackel with the turbidity to concentration calibration as taught by Andelie for the purpose of obtaining solids concentration (col. 1 lines 40-48, Andelie).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (U.S. Patent No. 10,022,729) in view of Kelley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,318,500, hereinafter Kelley).
Regarding claim 11, Hartmann does not explicitly disclose a step of verifying that the discharged volume of step d) corresponds to the determined volume filled with particles of step c).
Kelley discloses analogous art related to a method for controlling centrifuges to improve solid-liquid separations, comprising a step of verifying that the discharged volume of step d) corresponds to the determined volume filled with particles of step c) (claim 2, Table 1). 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 Hartmann with Kelley’s verification step for the purpose of verifying mass per shot were very close to those predicted (col. 10 lines 5-14, Kelley).
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
Prosecution Insights