DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/13/2026.
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 subject matter of claim 11 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.
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 4, 6 an d9 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 claims 4, 6 and 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH0353693 (‘693).
For claim 1, the ‘693 reference discloses a rotor (figure 1, object 4) for a separator apparatus, the rotor having an axis of rotation (Figure 1 as defined by the center of duct 7) and comprising: an inlet operable to receive an effluent stream (figure 1, object 7), an annular skirt defining a centrifugal separator operable to separate the effluent stream (figure 1, object 3 and 4), the centrifugal separator having a gas outlet in a first direction and a waste outlet in a second direction (objects, 1, 10 and 11), and wherein a surface of the annular skirt is angled towards the axis of rotation of the rotor,
such that during rotation of the rotor, non-gaseous matter in the effluent stream is biased towards
the waste outlet by contact with said surface (figure 1, objects 4 and 8).
For claim 2, the ‘693 reference discloses the gas outlet comprises one or more
conduits extending within the annular skirt (figures 1, 10 and 4), and wherein a wall defining a conduit provides the surface, and/or wherein a generally radially inwardly facing wall of the annular skirt provides the surface, and/or wherein a generally radially outward facing wall of the annular skirt provides the surface (figure 1 object 4). To note the terms “generally inwardly” and “generally outwardly” are not in reference to any other portion of the apparatus (i.e. the axis of rotation) and therefore are extremely broad.
For claim 3, the ‘693 reference discloses the rotor comprises a generally cylindrical chamber defined by a base plate and an opposing roof plate coupled by the annular skirt (figure 1, objects 1, 2 and 3).
For claim 4, the ‘693 reference discloses the inlet the opposing roof plate, preferably in the opposing roof plate (figure 1, objects 2 and 7).
For claim 5, the ‘693 reference discloses the rotor comprises one or more radially extending vanes operable to convey the effluent stream from the inlet to the centrifugal separator (figures 1 and 2 objects 3, 3’, 3”).
For claim 7, the ‘693 reference discloses a wall defining a conduit provides the surface and the conduit further comprises a first portion with walls that are substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotor (figure 1, objects 4, 7 and 8).
For claim 8, the ‘693 reference discloses the annular skirt extends beyond the opposing roof plate in the first direction (figure 1, objects 4 and 8).
For claim 9, the ‘693 reference discloses the gas outlet and waste outlet are in substantially opposite directions (figure 1 objects 9-11).
The limitations of claim 10 are the method of using the apparatus. The apparatus of claim ‘693 is capable of performing the functions of claim 10 and therefore meets the limitations of the apparatus claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0353693 (‘693) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Melling et al. US 2020/0230615 (‘615).
For claim 6, the ‘693 reference does not explicitly state at least a portion of the surface angled towards the axis of rotation is at an angle of from about 0.1° to about 45°.
The ‘693 reference discloses that a portion of the surface is angled towards the axis of rotation (figures 4 and 8)).
While it is understood that drawings are not to scale it is clear that there is an angle to objects 4 and 10 which be approximately the claimed angle or similar there to. Further the ‘615 reference discloses angles of 30° to about 45° to reduce turbulence and increase removal efficiency (figure [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘615 reference to include at least a portion of the surface angled towards the axis of rotation is at an angle of from about 30° to about 45° as the ‘693 reference suggests and angled surface and such surface would also reduce turbulence and improve separation efficiency. Further merely changing the shape of the sidewalls to be different angles would be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0353693 (‘693) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Rogers et al. 5,582,724.
For claim 11, the ‘693 reference does not disclose wherein the inlet comprises a weir to introduce water into said effluent stream.
The ‘724 reference discloses the inlet comprises a weirs where in the weirs are within centrifugal separators so as to separate immiscible fluids such as water and oil (figure 2, objects 76 and 84 and column 1, lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to once having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘693 reference to include the inlet comprises a weir (‘724 figure 2, objects 76 and 84) so as to control fluid flow and allow for two different fluids to be separated from the incoming stream. To note the limitation “to introduce water into said effluence stream” is the method of using the apparatus which the combination above is capable of performing and therefore do not further limit the apparatus claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights