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.
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 is acceptable. “A” has been removed from the beginning of the title in the database per MPEP 606.
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).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
Claim 1, line 24: “the wireless communication signal” lacks antecedent basis – such signal is not necessarily equated with the recitation of “wireless transmission of information” in lines 19-20.
The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted - MPEP 608.01(o).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
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.
If this application 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.
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 103 guidance above, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/19292 A1 in view of WO 2021/197967 A1.
WO 96/19292 discloses an interface level sensor 4 in the Figures for detecting at least one interface between separated phases (1A, 1B, 1C) in a centrifuge bowl (2) of
a centrifugal separator; said interface level sensor (4) comprising at least one sensor element (25) for detecting said at least one interface (1A, 1B, 1C); a power supply unit (see coil 12, power generator 20; fig.4) for providing electric current to the interface level sensor (4); a microcontroller unit (MCU 8; fig.4) for interfacing with the at least one sensor element (25); induction transmission device (5A) configured for wireless transmission of information of said at least one interface to a receiver (5B); and the power supply unit (12; see also power generator in fig.3) is configured to provide electric current to the transmission device (5A); wherein said interface level sensor (4) is formed as a single, replaceable unit 61 (Figures 6-6C).
WO 96/19292 does not disclose wherein the transmission device comprises an antenna configured for radio frequency (RF) signaling.
WO 2021/197967 (from the cited US equivalent 2023/0158514 A1) that in FIG. 1 shows a centrifuge with a rotatable rotor 1 and an assembly 2 that is stationary during operation. The rotatable rotor 1 and the non-rotatable assembly 2 are shown only schematically. The rotatable rotor 1 is rotatably mounted in or on the stationary assembly 2 by means of one or more bearing devices 3, wherein these bearing devices 3 can be designed in any manner per se, such as roller bearings or plain bearings and/or magnetic bearings. In order to set the rotor 1 in rotation, a drive device 4 acts on it, which can be designed, for example, as an electric motor, which can transmit a torque to the rotor 1 directly or via a gear unit (not shown). The rotatable rotor 1 has a rotatable drum 10. It may further comprise as a drive element, for example, a drive spindle 11 for rotating the drum 10, as well as one or more further elements.
The non-rotatable assembly 2 has a machine frame 20, as well as a hood 21 for covering the drum 10. Furthermore, it may comprise further elements such as a solids trap 22, as well as possibly further elements such as one or more lines, damping elements, a lubricant treatment unit, etc. The drum 10 has an inlet 101, a distributor 102, optionally a disc pack 103 consisting of separating discs 104, at least one first outlet 105 for a liquid phase and optionally at least one second outlet 106 for a solid phase. Optionally, a further outlet (not shown here) can be provided, for example, for discharging a further liquid phase. The drum 10 can be designed for continuous operation. It can preferably have a vertical axis of rotation. However, it is also conceivable to align the axis of rotation differently. The first outlet 105 can be designed as a peeling disc or gripper. However, it can also be of any other design, such as an open drain or a hermetically sealed drain. The second outlet 106 may be configured for continuous solids discharge and have continuously open solids discharge openings, particularly nozzles 109, for solids discharge. These one or more nozzles can be designed in such a way that their outlet or passage cross-section can be changed electrically. This could be realized, for example, by an electrically adjustable nozzle needle, which is moved into the passage cross-section and thereby changes the remaining passage cross-section, or by an impact body, which is pushed electrically adjustably in front of the nozzle opening and thereby creates a gap with variable gap width.
The electrical power for this is preferably provided from a battery and the control signals are sent by radio from the machine control system to a corresponding receiver and control electronics for the required actuators.
The solids discharge openings 107 are assigned at least one closing valve 108 which can be opened and closed electrically. Preferably, each of the solids discharge openings 107 is assigned one of the closing valves 108, with which the solids discharge openings 107 can be opened and closed discontinuously. Thus, these valves form one of the loads.
A flowable product to be processed can flow into the drum 10 where phase separation occurs in the centrifugal field, and the separated phases can be discharged separately from the drum 10 by various outlets 105, 106.
The centrifuge can be designed as a disc separator. Such an example is shown in FIG. 1. However, in particular individual or all features of the following description relating to the electronics and in particular the power supply of loads on the rotor as well as data transmission can also be implemented on centrifuges of other designs.
The centrifuge further comprises an electronic assembly 5. This electronic assembly comprises elements associated with the stationary assembly 2 and elements associated with the rotor 1. One or more loads 50 for consuming electrical power (i.e., one or more loads) are arranged in or on the rotor 1, which thus rotate with the rotor during operation. These loads 50 may include, for example, one or more of the following devices: a sensor 501, an actuator 502, and/or an initiator 503, and/or a transmitting and/or receiving unit 504, and/or a control unit in or on the rotor, and/or a data memory 506 in or on the rotor.
The closing valves 108 are designed in the form of solenoid valves that require electrical power to actuate them. They thus also form a load 50 in the form of an actuator 502. In addition, one or more sensors 501 are arranged on the rotor 1, in particular on or in the drum 10.
In order to supply the loads 50 with energy, a battery 51 is arranged on or in the rotor 1. A battery in the sense of the invention is a storage device for electrical power on an electrochemical basis. The battery 51 can be designed as a rechargeable battery, i.e., as an accumulator, in short power pack or secondary battery. However, it can also be designed as a non-rechargeable battery, called a primary battery for short. The battery 51 may be used to power one or more loads 50.
A non-rechargeable battery 51, which thus has to be changed from time to time when the rotor 1 is stationary and operation is interrupted, can be used in particular to supply one or more loads 50 with a low energy requirement, such as to supply a transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 of the rotor 1, in particular a radio transmitter, especially one using a radio standard with a relatively low energy requirement.
A rechargeable battery 51, on the other hand, can also be used to supply one or more loads with a higher power requirement, such as for actuating one or more solenoid valves, in particular designed as closing valves 108. The battery can also be used to electrically actuate the mechanism for changing the outlet or passage cross-section of a nozzle 109.
For fast-switching electrovalves, which can also open and close the required cross-sections at solids discharge openings, “several 10 watts” of power are required for actuation. If several, e.g., 10 to 20, valves are now distributed on the drum circumference, “some 100 watts” or more are required for tenths of seconds and constant voltage. It is possible to provide this power for modern batteries such as NiMh batteries or lithium-ion batteries. These could also be installed decentrally at the respective load/valve in order to then be centrally controlled.
If the battery 51 is formed as a rechargeable battery 51, it may be provided that an arrangement 52 for inductively generating electrical power is formed directly on the separator for at least charging the rechargeable battery 51. A charging circuit 523 may be formed between the arrangement 52 and the battery 51 to rectify the energy or induced voltage generated by the arrangement 52 and to provide it suitably to the terminals of the battery 51 for charging the battery 51. The arrangement 52 may be formed in various ways. It may comprise one or more first elements not rotating with the rotor, such as one or more magnets 521 associated with the stationary assembly 2 and one or more inductors (coils) 522 associated with the rotatable rotor 1, wherein the arrangement is such that in operation, i.e., when the drum is rotated, current is induced in the coil or coils 522 as the coils rotate past the magnet or magnets 521, so that electrical power is generated directly in the rotating system or rotor 1.
According to a first possible design, this energy generated in the rotating system or rotor 1 can be generated continuously during the complete revolutions of the rotor or only—in relation to the circumference—in certain areas, i.e., when the respective coil 522 moves past the magnet 521 during its revolution. This can be influenced by the corresponding circumferential distribution and a corresponding dimensioning of the number of magnets 521 and coils 522. In this way, the coils 521 themselves also form part of the rotor 1 and rotate with it during operation.
The one or more loads 50 may be coupled to the battery directly or through intermediary components and form a circuit therewith (not shown). The arrangement 52 may be located at positions suitable for inductors (coils) 522 attached to the drum to pass close to the stationary magnet 521. This may be at the bottom or top of the drum, but also at the outer circumference of the drum, or in the area of the drive spindle or in the area of the inlet or outlet.
Each load/sensor 50 can be assigned a respective transmitting and/or receiving unit 504, or several of the loads 501, 502, 503 can be assigned a common transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 of the rotor 1. In FIG. 1, transmitting and/or receiving units 504 are schematically represented by a kind of fan-like signal symbol. They may be arranged directly on the sensors 501 or may be formed together with them as a structural unit. Preferably, they each comprise an antenna, in particular an antenna projecting outwardly from the drum 10 or attached to the outside of the drum.
In FIG. 1, sensors 501 are shown purely schematically. The way they are shown exemplifies a type of function of the respective sensor 501, such as that of a filling level measurement (upper right sensor 501), a temperature sensor (upper left sensor 501) or a strain sensor (sensor on the far left).
The transmitting and/or receiving unit(s) 504 of the rotor may be designed to transmit data or signals and/or to receive data or signals, i.e., transmission devices. They may use any standard per se for this purpose, such as Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC) or light signals (light in the visible range). Preferably, the transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 is formed as a transmitting and/or receiving unit that uses a radio standard with a low power requirement.
Outside the rotor, a corresponding transmitting and/or receiving unit 505 is arranged in particular on the stationary assembly 2. The transmitting and/or receiving unit 505 on the stationary assembly 2 can also be designed to receive data or signals and/or to transmit data and/or signals. Preferably, the transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 is formed as a transmitting and/or receiving unit that operates with a radio standard with a low power requirement. The transmitting and/or receiving unit 505 is preferably connected to a control device 53 of the separator. The data and/or signal transmission between the transmitting and/or receiving units 504, 505 may be in one direction only or in two directions. Thus, it is conceivable that only data about the operating state of the rotor 10 or in the rotor—detected, for example, by one or more of the sensors 501—are transmitted from the transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 of the rotor 1 to the transmitting and/or receiving unit 505, so that these can be evaluated, for example, with the control device 53. However, it is also conceivable that conversely, for example, data and/or signals are transmitted from the transmitting and/or receiving unit 505 of the assembly 2 to the transmitting and/or receiving unit 504 of the rotor 1 in order to control an actuator 502, for example.
The battery 51 may be located in the drum at various locations. For example, the battery can be placed in a receptacle in or on the lower part of the drum or in the upper part of the drum. The transmitting and/or receiving unit(s) 504 of the rotor are preferably arranged such that their antenna(s) protrude outwardly from the rotor, for example in a conical region of the upper part of the drum.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the transmission device in WO 96/19292 with an antenna configured for radio frequency (RF) signaling as taught by WO 2021/197967 for the purposes of:
Wherein the load comprises a data memory in the rotor or on the rotor. This is because, according to this particularly advantageous variant of the invention, it becomes possible to store data directly on or in the rotor concerning the operation of the centrifuge and, in particular, the operating behavior of the centrifuge, and then to read them out as required and to transmit them, for example by radio, to an area outside the rotor, for example to a stationary control device. Alternatively, it is possible to store and/or evaluate these data directly in the rotor, if or for which purpose a suitable computer facility is then available there. Per [0018].
A data and signal communication to the control device of the centrifuge can be provided, in which the data and signals are generated or evaluated. Direct transmission of the data and signals to a data cloud is also conceivable, so that the data/signals can be processed independently of location. Per [0040].
Claims 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3782735 A1 in view of JP 2018-103075.
Claim 1: EP 3782735 discloses a centrifugal separator (2) for separating at least one liquid phase from a liquid feed mixture (paragraph 7), comprising a frame (see figure 1), a drive member (22) and a rotatable part (4), wherein the drive member is configured to rotate the rotatable part in relation to the frame around an axis of rotation (6), and wherein the rotatable part comprises a centrifuge bowl (see figure 1) enclosing a separation space (8); wherein the separation space comprises surface enlarging inserts (18) for increasing the separation performance of the centrifugal separator; wherein the centrifuge bowl is arranged in relation to the frame so that there is a gap formed between the centrifuge bowl and the frame (14) that allows continuous or intermittent ejection of a separated sludge phase from said centrifuge bowl to the space outside the centrifuge bowl (paragraph 64); and wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises an interface level sensor (34) for detecting at least one interface (paragraph 16 "a radial position of an interface between the light phase and the heavy phase") between separated phases in the centrifuge bowl during operation of the centrifugal separator; and transmission means (paragraph 57 "a non-shown transmitter or transceiver configured for wireless transmission of information (paragraph 57) of said at least one interface to a receiver outside of the centrifuge bowl.
EP 3782735 does not disclose the centrifugal separator comprises a solid transmission window, other than said transmission means, arranged in the wall of the centrifuge bowl; said solid transmission window having a higher transmission capacity for the wireless communication signal than the material of the centrifuge bowl.
JP 2018-103075 discloses a centrifugal separator (100) for separating at least one liquid phase from a liquid feed mixture and wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises an interface level sensor (126) and transmission device (128f) configured for wireless transmission of information of said at least one interface to a receiver (132) outside of the centrifuge bowl. where the centrifugal separator comprises a solid transmission window (130), other than said transmission, arranged in the wall of the centrifuge bowl; said solid transmission window having a higher transmission capacity for the wireless communication signal than the material of the centrifuge bowl (paragraph 29 "so as not to be affected by the electrical conduction of the outer barrel bowl 110"). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided EP ‘735 with the window of JP ‘075 to improve the quality of the wireless communication through a centrifugal bowl via an insulating insert as in JP ‘075.
Claim 2: EP 3782735 discloses detection of the position of said at least one interface and wherein said transmission means is configured for wireless transmission of information of said position of said at least one interface. EP 3782735 does not disclose the interface level sensor comprises at least one sensor element for direct detection of the position of said at least one interface. JP 2018-103075 does not disclose the interface level sensor comprises at least one sensor element for direct detection of the position of said at least one interface. However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to detect the position of at least one interface to use the sensor of JP 2018-103075 with the phase interface position detection of EP 3782735 to identify the position of the phase interface.
Claim 3: JP 2018-103075 discloses a capacitive sensor element (paragraph 31).
Claims 4 and 17: EP 3782735 discloses the centrifuge bowl comprises a sludge space (see figure 4) radially outside said separation space; and wherein the interface level sensor (34) is arranged with the at least one sensor element in said sludge space.
Claims 5, 18, and 19: EP 3782735 does not disclose the interface level sensor comprises at least two sensor elements arranged along a sensing direction: and wherein said sensing direction forms an angle with the axis of rotation. However, JP 2018-103075 discloses the interface level sensor comprises at least two sensor elements (128b) arranged along a sensing direction and wherein said sensing direction forms an angle with the axis of rotation (see figure 3a). However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to identify a phase interface as seen in EP 3782735 using a single level sensor as in to ensure there are two sensor elements in the sensor as seen in JP 2018-103075 to allow for differential in capacitance that can be used to identify the phase position.
Claims 6 and 20: EP 3782735 discloses the centrifugal separator comprises a power supply unit for providing electric current to the interface level sensor (paragraph 95).
Claim 7: In regards to claim 7, EP 3782735 discloses said power supply unit comprises a coil mounted in said rotatable part so that a voltage may be induced in said coil by an external magnetic field during rotation of the rotatable part (paragraph 95 "a rotary transformer).
Claim 8: EP 3782735 does not disclose said power supply unit is arranged in the interface level sensor. EP 3782735 does disclose the use of batteries to power the sensors (paragraph 95). It is considered to have been within the purview of one skilled in the art looking to power the sensors to arrange the batteries within the sensors themselves as a mere design option not requiring an inventive step.
Claim 9: EP 3782735 does not disclose said power supply unit comprises at least one button cell battery. However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to select a ubiquitous button cell battery as a compact power supply unit.
Claim 10: EP 3782735 in view of JP 2018-103075 does not disclose said at least one button cell battery has a bottom body forming the positive terminal and a top cap forming the negative terminal, and wherein the at least one button cell battery is arranged such that the top cap is at a radial position that is closer to the rotational axis than the radial position of the bottom body. However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to use a battery powered sensor to adjust the installation angle of the battery with respect to the centrifuge in any desired orientation or location as a mere obvious design option.
Claim 11: EP 3782735 in view of JP 2018-103075 does not disclose the interface level sensor is arranged in the centrifugal separator such that the normal to the surface of the bottom body is substantially in the radial direction. However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art to install an interface level sensor to install the sensor at any desired angle within the centrifuge as a mere obvious design option.
Claims 12-13: EP 3782735 does not disclose the transmission window comprises a ceramic material that comprises aluminum oxide . However, JP 2018-103075 discloses the transmission window is made of an insulating material (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized any desired construction material for the window since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Since the conclusion of obviousness can be made from the common knowledge and common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the window in the prior art from a well-known construction material such as an aluminum oxide ceramic. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It is observed that artisans must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it is concluded that the selection of a well-known material in the art such as plastic would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art, if for no other reason than to achieve the advantage of using a more modern material or a lower cost or more easily fabricated material.
This exemplifies the Supreme Court's analysis in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 [82 USPQ2d 1385] (2007). “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. As further emphasis on the substitution of one material for another, there is the venerable case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851), cited approvingly in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., supra, 550 U.S. at 406, 415, which denied patentability to an invention consisting of the substitution of a clay or porcelain knob for a metallic or wood knob in a doorknob (the doorknob itself, as distinct from the knob on the end of it, being an assemblage of knob, shank, and spindle). Other substitution cases in which patentability was denied on grounds of obviousness include Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535–38 [218 USPQ 871] (Fed. Cir. 1983); Brunswick Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 689 F.2d 740, 749-50 [216 USPQ 1] (7th Cir. 1982), and Lyle/Carlstrom Associates, Inc. v. Manhattan Store Interiors, Inc., 635 F.Supp. 1371, 1381-83 [230 USPQ 278] (E.D.N.Y. 1986), aff'd, 824 F.2d 977 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Among the inventions that the law deems obvious are those modest, routine, everyday, incremental improvements of an existing product or process that confer commercial value (otherwise they would not be undertaken) but do not involve sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection. This class of inventions is well illustrated by efforts at routine experimentation with different standard grades of a material used in a product—standard in the sense that their properties, composition, and method of creation are well known, making successful results of the experimentation predictable. Ritchie v. Vast Resources Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, it is well settled that a predictable substitution of one material for another is well within the grasp of 35 U.S.C 103(a) and common sense. A rejection to overcome an obviousness rejection will not be withdrawn when the allegedly missing teaching of the rejection would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, supra. Choosing an appropriate material for a specific application or structural member can unquestionably be determined by a PHOSITA by innate common sense, the common knowledge generally, or the common knowledge in the relevant art.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3782735 A1 in view of JP 2018-103075 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of WO 96/19292.
EP ‘735 in view of JP ‘075 does not disclose the details of the interface level sensor. WO 96/19292 discloses an interface level sensor 4 in the Figures for detecting at least one interface between separated phases (1A, 1B, 1C) in a centrifuge bowl (2) of
a centrifugal separator; said interface level sensor (4) comprising at least one sensor element (25) for detecting said at least one interface (1A, 1B, 1C); a power supply unit (see coil 12, power generator 20; fig.4) for providing electric current to the interface level sensor (4); a microcontroller unit (or MCU 8; fig.4) for interfacing with the at least one sensor element (25); induction transmission device (5A) configured for wireless transmission of information of said at least one interface to a receiver (5B); and the power supply unit (12; see also power generator in fig.3) is configured to provide electric current to the transmission device (5A); wherein said interface level sensor (4) is formed as a single, replaceable unit 61 (Figures 6-6C).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the interface level sensor in modified EP ‘735 with the interface level sensor of WO 96/19292 for the purposes of enabling measurement concerning fluids in a rotor or container during rotation, comprising an electric or magnetic sensor mounted internally on a wall in the container, and means for contact-free and intermittent transmission of measurement signals from the sensor to a stationary measuring unit outside the container; the sensor comprises an active electronic circuit adapted to store measurement values that are recorded during at least a portion of a revolution of the container, before said transmission of corresponding measurement signals to the measuring unit; electric power supply to the electronic circuit is provided for by generator means comprising a stationary magnet near the container and a coil mounted in the container so that a voltage is induced in the coil during movement past the magnet during the rotation of the container; for measuring the position of an interface between two fluids in a centrifuge rotor during rotation, comprising an electric or magnetic sensor mounted internally on a wall in the centrifuge rotor, and means for contact-free and intermittent transmission of measurement signals from the sensor to a stationary measuring unit outside the centrifuge rotor; and to achieve a high degree of accuracy this level measurement, i.e. measurement of the position of the interface between the fluids or media such as to measure the position of the interface between water and oil with high accuracy (pages 1-2) and to ensure the sensor is a single, replaceable unit to allow for efficient swapping of the sensors to minimize process down time.
Claim 15: EP 3782735 discloses said centrifugal separator is arranged for continuous discharge of a separated sludge phase from a plurality of sludge outlets (42) distributed around the periphery of the centrifuge bowl (see figures 3 and 4). Namely, the centrifugal separator 2 comprises a heavy phase outlet 14 leading from the separation space 8. In these embodiments, the heavy phase outlet 14 comprises nozzles 42 arranged at an outer periphery of the rotor 4. In this manner, a liquid feed mixture having a large heavy phase content may be separated in the centrifugal separator 2. At least one of the nozzles 42 is always at least partially open during operation of the centrifugal separator 2. Thus, the heavy phase is continuously ejected through one or more of the nozzles 42 during operation of the centrifugal separator 2. However, EP 3782735 in view of JP 2018-103075 does not disclose wherein said interface level sensor is arranged at the position of one of said sludge outlets; thereby replacing one of said sludge outlets. However, it is considered that it is within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to minimize flow disruption of liquids in the centrifuge to arrange the sensor in the sludge outlet of EP 3782735 in a recessed manner as seen in JP 2018-103075.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3782735 in view of WO 2021/197967 A1.
EP 3782735 discloses an interface level sensor (paragraph 7 "a first pressure sensor") for detecting at least one interface (paragraph 16 "a radial position of an interface between the light phase and the heavy phase") between separated phases in a centrifuge bowl of a centrifugal separator; said interface level sensor comprising at least one sensor element (paragraph 17 "pressure sensitive portions") for detecting said at least one interface; a power supply unit for providing electric current to the interface level sensor (paragraph 95); a microcontroller unit (paragraph 7 "a control unit") (MCU) for interfacing with the at least one sensor element; transmission device (paragraph 57 "a non-shown transmitter or transceiver) configured for wireless transmission (paragraph 57) of information of said at least one interface to a receiver; and the power supply unit is configured to provide electric current to the transmission device (paragraph 95); the sensed parameter may be a pressure difference determined via an interface level sensor assembly 34, 36 such that conclusions may be drawn from the pressure difference relating to the process liquid in the separation space 8 such as a radial position of an interface between the light and heavy phases, and/or an interface between sludge and the heavy phase may be determined; the interface level sensor assembly 34, 36 is inserted into the rotor drum 4 at some point and thus are considered to be a single, replaceable sensor device.
EP 3782735 does not explicitly disclose and wherein the transmission device comprises an antenna configured for radiofrequency (RF) signaling.
WO 2021/197967 is relied upon as above for the teaching of such an antenna. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the transmission device in EP 3782735 with an antenna configured for radio frequency (RF) signaling as taught by WO 2021/197967 for the purposes of:
Wherein the load comprises a data memory in the rotor or on the rotor. This is because, according to this particularly advantageous variant of the invention, it becomes possible to store data directly on or in the rotor concerning the operation of the centrifuge and, in particular, the operating behavior of the centrifuge, and then to read them out as required and to transmit them, for example by radio, to an area outside the rotor, for example to a stationary control device. Alternatively, it is possible to store and/or evaluate these data directly in the rotor, if or for which purpose a suitable computer facility is then available there. Per [0018].
A data and signal communication to the control device of the centrifuge can be provided, in which the data and signals are generated or evaluated. Direct transmission of the data and signals to a data cloud is also conceivable, so that the data/signals can be processed independently of location. Per [0040].
Additionally, it is considered to have been well within the realm of obviousness to one skilled in the art looking to calibrate a sensor unit efficiently and repeatedly to ensure it is a single, replaceable unit to allow for efficient swapping of the unit as needed for maintenance and/or repair purposes to thereby minimize process down time.
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 centrifuges, some with interface level detection.
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: 4 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights