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 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
the two different views of each of Figures 6 and 7 are not numbered separately in consecutive Arabic numerals in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheets (37 CFR 1.84(u)).
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 will 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. Moreover, “A” at the beginning of a title is improper. (MPEP 606.01).
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, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by QUITER et al. (US 2016/0001302 A1).
QUITER et al. discloses a centrifugal separator for separating at least one liquid phase from a liquid feed mixture, comprising: a frame; a drive member; and a rotating part, wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the rotating part in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation, wherein the rotating part comprises a centrifuge bowl enclosing a separation space, wherein the centrifuge bowl further comprises an inlet 4 for receiving the liquid feed mixture, and at least one liquid outlet 7 for separated liquid phase(s), wherein the separation space comprises a stack of separation discs 3 arranged coaxially around the axis of rotation; and more specifically per [0019] discloses in FIG. 2 a centrifuge configured as a separator, here as a nozzle-type separator, comprising a drum 1 which is rotatable about a rotational axis D and into which is respectively inserted a separator disk package 2 made up of separator disks 3, 3′ arranged or stacked one above the other. The working of such separators comprising an inlet 4, a solids chamber 5, and outlets 6, 7 for the emptying of solids and or the evacuation of liquid phase(s) has long been common knowledge. The rotational axis D is here oriented vertically and the drum 2 is preferably of double-conical configuration. It enables a continuous processing, in particular clarification, of a product to be processed. In addition thereto, a separation of the product into two liquid phases of different density can also be realized. For the emptying of solids, nozzles (outlet 6), or openings, closable by piston valves, in the drum are preferably used (not represented); wherein said separation discs comprise distance members 12, 13 arranged so that interspaces are formed between adjacent separation discs 3 in the disc stack, wherein a plurality of said separation discs comprise a throttle member 19, other than said distance members, arranged to and capable of causing a decrease in pressure to a liquid flowing through the disc stack in said interspaces, and wherein the plurality of separation discs are configured to allow for a radial flow of liquid in a direction from an outer periphery of the discs to an inner periphery of the discs throughout a major portion of the discs;
wherein said throttle member 19 is arranged on a separation surface of the separation discs 3, and wherein a height of the throttle member 19 from said separation surface is less than a height of the distance members 12, 13 - Figures 5a, 5b;
wherein the throttle member is a ridge 19 extending from a separation surface of the separation disc 3 - Figures 5a, 5b;
wherein said throttle member 19 is arranged radially inside the ends of said distance members 12, 13 - Fig. 5a;
wherein the throttle member 19 is formed as an integral part of the inner or outer separation surface of the separation disc 3 - Figs. 5a, 5b;
wherein said throttle members are arranged on the same side of the separation discs as the distance members - Figs. 5a, 5b;
wherein the distance members 12, 13 are spot formed is a product-by-process limitation not germane to the patentability of the apparatus (MPEP 2113);
wherein the throttle member can comprises a plurality of individual throttle portions (selected ones of 12, 13, or 14) having the same height from the separation surface as the distance members (selected others of 12, 13, or 14) but can be selectively chosen such that they are arranged with a mutual distance that is less than a mutual distance between the distance members;
wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises a sludge outlet 6 arranged at a periphery of the centrifuge bowl 1;
wherein the at least one liquid outlet for a separated liquid phase comprises a first liquid outlet 7 for the liquid heavy phase and a second liquid outlet 7 for the liquid light phase [0019];
a method of separating at least one liquid phase from a liquid feed mixture, comprising the steps of: a) introducing the liquid feed mixture into the centrifugal separator according to claim 1; and b) discharging at least one separated liquid phase from said centrifugal separator [0019];
wherein step b) further comprises intermittently ejecting a separated solids phase through a set of intermittently openable outlets 6 [0019];
wherein the throttle member is a ridge 19 extending from the separation surface of the separation disc 3.
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).
Claims 3, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUITER et al. in view of MADANY (US 3187998).
QUITER et al. does not disclose the full turn of the throttle member around the axis of rotation. MADANY discloses an analogous centrifuge with a bowl 10 rotating around an axis of rotation and having separation discs 11 therein; the discs 11 including throttle/spacing members 24 that extend a full turn around the axis of rotation - Figures 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the discs of QUITER et al. with throttle/spacing members that extend a full turn around the axis of rotation as disclosed by MADANY for the purposes of providing a plurality of mixing spaces between adjacent spaced apart discs such that small volumes of liquid are contacted separately and good mixing is insured whereby the rings between the discs prevent the liquids from bypassing the mixing zones and by having a large number of mixing and separating zones, a large output capacity is provided in a small overall structure (col. 3, lines 65-73).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUITER et al. in view of LINDROTH et al. (US 2011/0136649 A1).
QUITER et al. does not disclose the separation of a dairy mixture into cream and skim milk. LINDROTH et al. discloses an analogous centrifuge in FIG. 1 that depicts a rotor 1 for a separator for separation of cream from milk. The rotor 1 is arranged rotatable around an axis of rotation x and comprises a separating space 2 for the milk which is supplied to the rotor 1 in order to be separated. To this end, the separator is provided with an inlet (not depicted) which extends into the separating space 2 in order to feed in the milk which is to be separated, and at least two outlets (not depicted) for discharging cream and skim milk respectively out from the separating space. The rotor's separating space 2 is adapted to being provided with a number of stacked separation discs 3 which rotate with the rotor 1 about the axis of rotation x. The separation disc 3 comprises a truncated substantially conical portion 3a and a flange element 3b which is connected to the conical portion at the latter's smallest radius and extends therefrom radially inwards substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation x. In the embodiment depicted, the flange element 3b has a radial extent corresponding to about 35% of the radial extent of the substantially conical portion 3a. The separation disc 3 is provided with a hole 3c which surrounds the axis of rotation x and which is adapted to forming in the stack of separation discs 3 a flow passage which extends axially through the stack of separation discs 3 in order to lead away cream separated from the milk. The stack of separation discs 3 is arranged substantially coaxially with the axis of rotation x on a column 4 which is connected to the rotor and which extends coaxially through the holes 3c which surround the axis of rotation x of the stack of separation discs 3.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a dairy mixture as the liquid feed mixture in the method of QUITER et al. as taught by LINDROTH et al. for the purposes of generating phases of separated materials in the form of a cream phase and a skim milk phase [0017].
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUITER et al. in view of NILSSON et al. (US 10960411 B2).
QUITER et al. does not disclose the throttle members being arranged on the inner separation surface of the respective disc. NILSSON et al. discloses an analogous a separation disc 1 for a centrifugal separator. A plurality of such separation discs 1 are arranged and compressed on top of each other to form a stack of separation discs inside a centrifugal rotor for separating a liquid mixture. As can be seen, the separation disc 1 has a truncated conical shape with an inner surface 2 and an outer surface 3. The inner surface 2 and/or the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1 is provided with throttle/spacing members 4 and/or 5 to form interspaces between the separation discs 1 in the stack. FIG. 4 shows a cross-section of said small-sized and spot-formed spacing members 4 on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1. As can be seen, the spacing members 4 are formed in one piece with the material of the separation disc 1. The presently utilized manufacturing techniques (or the flow forming technique) for producing separation discs 1 is the main reason why the integrally formed spacing members 4 are provided on the inner surface 2. However, they may as well be arranged on the outer surface 3 of the separation disc. The integrally formed spacing members 4 may for instance be provided on the outer surface 2 by a pressing technique. Furthermore, the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1 is provided with the small-sized spacing members 4 only. Furthermore, small-sized spacing members 4 and 5 may be flow formed on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1, wherein large-sized spacing members in the form of said separate pieces may be attached to the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the throttle/spacing members on the outer and/or inner separation surface of the discs in QUITER et al. as taught by NILSSON et al. since NILSSON et al. teaches that the centrifuge art recognizes that such throttle/spacing members can be disposed on the outer and/or inner separation surface of the discs as desired by one skilled in the art or as a function of the manner in which the discs are manufactured as outlined above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUITER et al. in view of MADANY (US 3187998) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of NILSSON et al. (US 10960411 B2).
QUITER et al. as modified by MADANY do not disclose the throttle members being arranged on the inner separation surface of the respective disc. NILSSON et al. discloses an analogous a separation disc 1 for a centrifugal separator. A plurality of such separation discs 1 are arranged and compressed on top of each other to form a stack of separation discs inside a centrifugal rotor for separating a liquid mixture. As can be seen, the separation disc 1 has a truncated conical shape with an inner surface 2 and an outer surface 3. The inner surface 2 and/or the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1 is provided with throttle/spacing members 4 and/or 5 to form interspaces between the separation discs 1 in the stack. FIG. 4 shows a cross-section of said small-sized and spot-formed spacing members 4 on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1. As can be seen, the spacing members 4 are formed in one piece with the material of the separation disc 1. The presently utilized manufacturing techniques (or the flow forming technique) for producing separation discs 1 is the main reason why the integrally formed spacing members 4 are provided on the inner surface 2. However, they may as well be arranged on the outer surface 3 of the separation disc. The integrally formed spacing members 4 may for instance be provided on the outer surface 2 by a pressing technique. Furthermore, the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1 is provided with the small-sized spacing members 4 only. Furthermore, small-sized spacing members 4 and 5 may be flow formed on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1, wherein large-sized spacing members in the form of said separate pieces may be attached to the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1.
NILSSON et al. discloses an analogous a separation disc 1 for a centrifugal separator. A plurality of such separation discs 1 are arranged and compressed on top of each other to form a stack of separation discs inside a centrifugal rotor for separating a liquid mixture. As can be seen, the separation disc 1 has a truncated conical shape with an inner surface 2 and an outer surface 3. The inner surface 2 and/or the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1 is provided with throttle/spacing members 4 and/or 5 to form interspaces between the separation discs 1 in the stack. FIG. 4 shows a cross-section of said small-sized and spot-formed spacing members 4 on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1. As can be seen, the spacing members 4 are formed in one piece with the material of the separation disc 1. The presently utilized manufacturing techniques (or the flow forming technique) for producing separation discs 1 is the main reason why the integrally formed spacing members 4 are provided on the inner surface 2. However, they may as well be arranged on the outer surface 3 of the separation disc. The integrally formed spacing members 4 may for instance be provided on the outer surface 2 by a pressing technique. Furthermore, the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1 is provided with the small-sized spacing members 4 only. Furthermore, small-sized spacing members 4 and 5 may be flow formed on the inner surface 2 of the separation disc 1, wherein large-sized spacing members in the form of said separate pieces may be attached to the outer surface 3 of the separation disc 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the throttle/spacing members on the outer and/or inner separation surface of the discs in modified QUITER et al. as taught by NILSSON et al. since NILSSON et al. teaches that the centrifuge art recognizes that such throttle/spacing members can be disposed on the outer and/or inner separation surface of the discs as desired by one skilled in the art or as a function of the manner in which the discs are manufactured as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses centrifuge separation discs with throttle/spacing members thereon.
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: 23 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights