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 applicant’s claim for foreign priority (BR1020210256958, filed on December 17, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “each
The phrase “non-ferromagnetic cylindric support” should be corrected to read “non-ferromagnetic cylindrical support” for proper adjective usage.
The phrase “at least a concentration plan of the magnetic flow density” should be corrected to read “at least one concentration plane of the magnetic flow density” for proper terminology.
The phrase “with magnets the magnetic poles of which are perpendicularly oriented” should be corrected to read “with magnets having magnetic poles perpendicularly oriented” for grammar.
The phrase “parallel magnetic arrangement section with the magnetic poles parallelly oriented” should be corrected to read “parallel magnetic arrangement section with the magnetic poles parallelly oriented” for grammar.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the internal tubular element” should be corrected to read “the internal tube” for consistency.
The phrase “the external tubular element” should be corrected to read “the external tube” for consistency.
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the internal tubular element” should be corrected to read “the internal tube” for consistency.
The phrase “the external tubular element (30)” should be corrected to read “the external tube” for consistency and to remove the unnecessary reference numeral.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “nytril rubber” should be corrected to read “nitrile rubber” for spelling.
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “parallel arrangements” should be corrected to read “parallel magnetic arrangement sections” for term consistency.
Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “with poles orientation in opposite directions” should be corrected to read “with the magnetic poles oriented in opposite directions” for grammar.
Claim 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “arranged at each side” should be corrected to read “arranged on each side” for grammar.
The phrase “same poles orientation” should be corrected to read “same magnetic pole orientation” for grammar and term consistency.
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the other half of magnets” should be corrected to read “the other half of the magnets” for grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17-31 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a magnetic anti-scaling axisymmetric arrangement.” This limitation is unclear in that it does not clearly identify whether the claimed device includes one arrangement or separate magnetic and axisymmetric arrangements. The claim later recites “the magnetic arrangement” and “the axisymmetric arrangement,” thereby treating each phrase as a definite claim element, but the earlier limitation does not separately introduce a magnetic arrangement and an axisymmetric arrangement. Accordingly, the claim fails to provide clear antecedent basis and clear structural boundaries for the recited arrangements. Claims 18-31, which depend on Claim 17, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the wall of the piping with fluid flow inside it.” This limitation is unclear because Claim 17 recites “a non-ferromagnetic internal tube with fluid flow inside it,” but does not previously recite “piping.” Accordingly, the claim uses inconsistent terminology, and it is unclear whether “the piping” refers to the non-ferromagnetic internal tube or to another piping structure. Claims 18-31, which depend on Claim 17, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the core portion.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis because the claim does not previously recite a core portion.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 depends from canceled Claim 4 and therefore does not refer to a previous pending claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASHTON (US5348050) in view of LOMBARDI et al. (US20140263077A1, hereinafter LOMBARDI).
Regarding Claim 17, ASHTON discloses a magnetic fluid treatment device that induces a magnetic field into the fluid path of a conduit to reduce crust and scale buildup on conduit walls, wherein the magnetic field induced into the fluid flow path is substantially totally orthogonal to the axis of the flow path (Col. 1, Lns. 5-12).
For the structural arrangement, the individual modules are designed to be installed on a length of non-ferrous pipe that is further installed inside a ferrous steel housing to become part of an assembly, or independently installed in the proper configuration and quantity directly on a previously existing non-ferrous conduit (Col. 5, Lns. 4-20).
FIGS. 7 and 8 illustrate magnetic fluid treatment device 70 for oil-field use, including outer steel shell 72 with conical end caps 80, coaxial inner copper conduit 73, and magnet pairs 74, 76 maintained between outer steel shell 72 and conduit 73. The magnet pairs 74, 76 are diametrically opposed and oppositely faced, with magnets 74 having north poles against conduit 73 and magnets 76 having south poles against conduit 73. A plurality of aligned magnet pairs 74, 76 are axially spaced along magnetic fluid treatment device 70 (Col. 10, Lns. 3-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 of ASHTON
For the spacing structure, spacers 78 are positioned between the axially aligned circular arrangement of magnet pairs 74, 76 and are made of a suitable plastic or other nonferrous material (Col. 10, Lns. 24-30). For the end-connection structure, threaded connectors 82 are provided at the ends of end caps 80 (i.e., two diameter transition elements; Col. 10, Lns. 31-37).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 8 of ASHTON
FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate magnet holders 88 that receive magnets 74, 76 and keep magnet pairs 74, 76 in diametrically opposed, circumferentially displaced, and axially displaced positions. Magnet holders 88 comprise cylindrical members having side wall sections 90 removed to receive magnets 74, 76. Conduit 73 is received within a central axial bore of magnet holder 88, and magnet holder 88 is received within cylindrical shell 72. Magnet holder 88 and magnets 74, 76 form magnetic subassembly 92 adapted for receipt over conduit 73 and within shell 72 (Col. 10, Lns. 38-60).
PNG
media_image3.png
400
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 9 of ASHTON
However, ASHTON does not explicitly disclose the axisymmetric arrangement includes at least one parallel magnetic arrangement section having magnetic poles oriented parallel to the wall of the internal tube.
LOMBARDI discloses an apparatus and method for applying a magnetic field to portions of a fluid purification system, such as a water purification system (¶[0002]).
FIG. 4 illustrates an array of magnets 90 supported within cavity 95 of body portion 80, wherein the array includes magnets having S-N or N-S polarity oriented along the x-axis, which is parallel to tubing 100 and the direction of fluid flow through tubing 100. The array is a Halbach array that produces a concentrated magnetic field toward tubing 100, with magnetic field 92 amplified and directed toward region 110 within tubing 100 through which fluid flow is conveyed (i.e., a parallel magnetic arrangement; ¶¶[0040]-[0041]).
PNG
media_image4.png
400
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of LOMBARDI
The parallel magnetic arrangement disclosed by LOMBARDI applies the well-known Halbach array principle, in which selected magnet orientations concentrate and direct magnetic flux toward a target region while reducing magnetic flux on an opposite side. In view of ASHTON’s modular magnetic arrangement of the fluid treatment device, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated the parallel magnetic arrangement into selected magnet positions with the perpendicular magnetic arrangement to predictably control the orientation and distribution of magnetic flux applied to the fluid flow path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the parallel magnetic arrangement, as disclosed by LOMBARDI, as part of the modular magnetic arrangement of the magnetic fluid treatment device by ASHTON.
Regarding Claim 18, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. FIG. 9 of ASHTON illustrates magnetic subassembly 92 at the bottom of magnet holder 88, and the holder is made from plastic or other nonferrous material (Col. 10, Lns. 38-60). Based on the position and material, magnetic subassembly 92 is reasonably interpreted as an absorber.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. FIGS. 8 and 9 of ASHTON illustrate spacers 78 positioned between the axially aligned circular arrangement of magnet pairs 74, 76, wherein spacers 78 are made of a suitable plastic or other nonferrous material (Col. 10, Lns. 24-30). Nitrile rubber is a known nonferrous elastomer material.
Regarding Claim 21, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. Regarding the limitation “the external tube has openings for pressure equalization,” providing openings in the external tube is considered an obvious matter of routine design choice and common mechanical knowledge to vent the space between the internal tube and the external tube and equalize pressure in that space with the surrounding environment. The limitation is not shown to affect the magnetic anti-scaling operation, fluid treatment path, or magnetic field arrangement, and merely applies a known mechanical safeguard for its ordinary expected function of pressure equalization. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Regarding Claim 22, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. Regarding the limitation “mechanism for cabling protection,” providing a protective cover, guard, or duct over the external tube or diameter transition elements is considered an obvious matter of routine design choice to protect cabling routed along the device from impact, abrasion, or displacement. The limitation is not shown to affect the magnetic anti-scaling operation, fluid treatment path, or magnetic field arrangement, and merely applies a known mechanical safeguard for its ordinary expected function of protecting cabling. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Regarding Claim 23, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. ASHTON discloses magnetic modules installed on a non-ferrous pipe and plastic or other nonferrous spacers (Col. 5, Lns. 4-20 and Col. 10, Lns. 24-30). LOMBARDI discloses that housing 20 may be made of aluminum, austenitic stainless steel, or another industrial material having no or very low magnetic response (¶[0039]).
Regarding the limitation “the internal and external tubes and the diameter transition elements are made of a material that has a relative magnetic permeability between 0.99 and 1.01,” the disclosed nonferrous and low-magnetic-response materials show that magnetically non-interfering structural materials were known for components surrounding magnetic fluid-treatment assemblies. Selecting such materials for the remaining surrounding components would have been an obvious matter of routine material selection and optimization to preserve the intended magnetic field applied to the fluid flow path. The claimed range merely reflects the expected property of nonmagnetic structural components, and no criticality or unexpected result is apparent. See MPEP §§ 2144.03 and 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 26 and 27, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. ASHTON discloses individual magnetic modules installed on a non-ferrous pipe in the proper configuration and quantity for the conduit size and fluid to be treated (Col. 5, Lns. 4-20). LOMBARDI discloses a Halbach array having adjacent magnets with different magnetic orientations, with the magnetic field amplified and directed toward tubing through which fluid flow is conveyed (¶¶[0040]-[0041]).
Regarding the limitation requiring the perpendicular and parallel magnetic arrangement sections to be alternately arranged, with Claim 26 directed to parallel magnetic arrangement sections arranged at the two ends and Claim 27 directed to perpendicular magnetic arrangement sections arranged at the two ends, these limitations are considered an optimization of section order and terminal placement.
In view of modified ASHTON’s modular magnetic arrangement and the Halbach principle, a person skilled in the art would have selected the alternating order and terminal placement of the perpendicular and parallel magnetic arrangement sections to control magnetic flux applied to fluid flowing inside the tube. Thus, selecting parallel or perpendicular magnetic arrangement sections at the two ends would have predictably optimized flux direction and distribution at the terminal portions of the axisymmetric arrangement (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555; 1975).
Regarding Claim 28, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. ASHTON discloses individual magnetic modules installed on a non-ferrous pipe in the proper configuration and quantity for the conduit size and fluid to be treated (Col. 5, Lns. 4-20). LOMBARDI discloses a Halbach array having adjacent magnets with different magnetic orientations, with the magnetic field amplified and directed toward tubing 100 through which fluid flow is conveyed (¶¶[0040]-[0041]).
Regarding the limitation requiring the perpendicular magnetic arrangement sections and the parallel magnetic arrangement sections to be alternately arranged with pole orientations in opposite directions, this limitation is considered an optimization of section order and pole-orientation placement.
In view of modified ASHTON’s modular magnetic arrangement and the Halbach principle, a person skilled in the art would have selected opposite pole orientations for alternating perpendicular and parallel magnetic arrangement sections to control magnetic flux applied to fluid flowing inside the tube. Thus, alternating opposite pole orientations would have predictably optimized flux direction and distribution along the axisymmetric arrangement (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555; 1975).
Regarding Claim 29, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. ASHTON discloses individual magnetic modules installed on a non-ferrous pipe in the proper configuration and quantity for the conduit size and fluid to be treated (Col. 5, Lns. 4-20). LOMBARDI discloses a Halbach array having adjacent magnets with different magnetic orientations, with the magnetic field amplified and directed toward tubing 100 through which fluid flow is conveyed (¶¶[0040]-[0041]).
Regarding the limitation requiring at least one perpendicular magnetic arrangement section at the core portion, a plurality of parallel magnetic arrangement sections arranged on each side of the perpendicular magnetic arrangement section, and adjacent parallel magnetic arrangement sections having the same pole orientation, this limitation is considered an optimization of section positioning and pole-orientation placement.
In view of modified ASHTON’s modular magnetic arrangement and the Halbach principle, a person skilled in the art would have selected the position and pole orientation of the perpendicular and parallel magnetic arrangement sections to control magnetic flux applied to fluid flowing inside the tube. Thus, arranging parallel magnetic arrangement sections on each side of a perpendicular magnetic arrangement section with the same pole orientation would have predictably optimized flux direction and distribution along the axisymmetric arrangement (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555; 1975).
Regarding Claim 30, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. FIG. 8 of ASHTON illustrates threaded connectors 82 provided at the ends of conical end caps 80 of magnetic fluid treatment device 70 (Col. 10, Lns. 31-37).
Regarding Claim 31, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 23. ASHTON discloses diametrically opposed magnets positioned around a conduit with opposite pole faces adjacent the conduit to form a magnetic flux curtain through the conduit, and reversing a diametrically opposed magnet pair so that opposite pole faces are adjacent the conduit to increase the magnetic field intensity (Col. 7, Lns. 36-54, Col. 8, Ln. 62 - Col. 9, Ln. 8). LOMBARDI discloses a Halbach array having adjacent magnets with different magnetic orientations, with the magnetic field amplified and directed toward tubing 100 through which fluid flow is conveyed (¶¶[0040]-[0041]).
Regarding the limitation requiring the perpendicular and parallel magnetic arrangement sections to each include first and second magnet segments having opposite pole orientations, this limitation is considered an optimization of magnet segmentation and pole-orientation placement.
In view of modified ASHTON’s magnetic arrangement and the Halbach principle, a person skilled in the art would have divided the magnets into segments with opposite pole orientations to compress and direct magnetic flux applied to fluid flowing inside the tube. Thus, using centripetal and centrifugal pole orientations in the perpendicular magnetic arrangement section and opposite parallel pole orientations in the parallel magnetic arrangement section would have predictably optimized flux direction and distribution within the axisymmetric arrangement (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555; 1975).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASHTON in view of LOMBARDI as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of PERIO (US20170051576A1).
Regarding Claim 25, modified ASHTON makes obvious the magnetic anti-scaling device of Claim 17. ASHTON discloses permanent magnets 74 and 76 in the magnetic arrangement. However, modified ASHTON does not explicitly disclose that the permanent magnets are NdFeB permanent magnets.
PERIO discloses methods and apparatuses for magnetic scale deposition reduction, including preventing scale formation or removing existing scale using magnets (¶[0050]). The magnetic apparatus prevents accumulation of unwanted solid deposits in production tubing, integrates with a hydrocarbon carrying conduit, and includes permanent magnets disposed adjacent the hydrocarbon flow line to prevent or reduce unwanted deposit buildup (¶¶[0052]-[0053]). For the material of the permanent magnets, neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) rare-earth magnets are suitable for use at ambient temperatures less than 150°F (65.6°C) (¶[0065]).
The NdFeB permanent magnets disclosed by PERIO are known suitable rare-earth permanent magnets for magnetic scale deposition reduction due to high magnetic strength in a compact permanent magnet body. In view of modified ASHTON’s use of permanent magnets in the magnetic arrangement, a person skilled in the art would have selected NdFeB permanent magnets as the permanent magnets in the magnetic arrangement to predictably provide high magnetic strength in a compact permanent magnet body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use NdFeB permanent magnets, as disclosed by PERIO, in the magnetic fluid treatment device by modified ASHTON.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703) 756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights