NON-FINAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings 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 claims 21 (one or more tubes) and 25 (a sensor) 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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets 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 section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 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 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 sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
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 of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the second heavier sedimenting solid phase heavier solids phase” in line 20 is grammatically awkward and the phrase “the open rotatable” is missing a noun. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: at least one means for increasing an equivalent clarifying surface in claim 17. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 15-27 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 15 recites the limitation "the batch" in lines 8 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-25 are rejected for the same reason because they depend from said claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitations "the liquid-liquid-solid mixture" in line 3, “the batch” in lines 11 and 17, “the medium-heavy liquid phase” in line 22, and “the bowl wall” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason due to its dependency upon said claim.
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.
Claims 15-18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0026193, hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe discloses a centrifugal separator, comprising: a rotatable bowl (rotating container 20, Fig. 1) configured to purify, into a purified liquid phase, a liquid-solid mixture containing sedimenting and floating solids by centrifugally separating the sedimenting and floating solids from the liquid-solid mixture in a centrifugal field during batch operation (para. [0038]), wherein the bowl comprises a separating chamber (rotating container 20, Fig. 1); a liquid discharge (opening portion 21b, Fig. 1) configured to continuously discharge the purified liquid phase from the separating chamber during processing of the batch (“The development fatigue liquid Qw passes through the outer edge side of the inside disc 22 and overflows to the case 24 from the opening portion 21b of the container 20”, para. [0062]); and at least two solids-collecting regions provided at different radii of the rotatable bowl, wherein a first of the at least two solids-collecting regions (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1) is configured to collect a first lighter floating solid phase (first solid substance 36, Fig. 3) and a second of the at least two solids-collecting regions (inner wall 20g, Fig. 1) is configured to collect a second heavier sedimenting solid phase (second solid substance 37, Fig. 3) so that the at least two solids-collecting regions are fillable with the respective solid phase over time while the batch is being processed (para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe discloses wherein the purified liquid phase is discharged from the separating chamber on a central radius (opening portion 21b, Fig. 1) and the first one of the at least two solids-collecting region (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1) for the lighter floating solid phase (first solid substance 36, Fig. 3) is located on a smaller radius relative to the central radius and the second one of the at least two solids-collecting region (inner wall 20g, Fig. 1) for the second heavier sedimenting solid phase (second solid substance 37, Fig. 3) is located on a larger radius relative to the central radius.
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe discloses at least one means (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1) for increasing an equivalent clarifying surface is arranged in the separating chamber.
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe discloses wherein the means for increasing the equivalent clarifying surface is a disk pack (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe discloses wherein the liquid discharge comprises a separating disk (inside disc 22 with opening 2a, Fig. 1, para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe discloses wherein the rotatable bowl, when stationary, is openable so that the first and second solid phases removable from the rotatable bowl after processing the batch (para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe discloses wherein the separator does not include a solids drain configured to discharge solids during centrifugal processing when the rotatable bowl rotates (solids leave only after stopping, through shutter 21c. Scraper 34 removal also occurs with the shutter open. para. [0047], [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe discloses wherein the rotatable bowl is openable in a lower region (shutter 21c is openable in lower region, Fig. 1), so that after processing the batch of the two solid phases and a residual liquid is drainable out of the rotatable bowl via a drain into a container (the two solid phases 36 and 37 and any amount of liquid Qw held with the solids in container 20 drains out of open shutter 21c into tray 32, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe discloses a method for centrifugally purifying, into a purified liquid phase, a liquid-solid mixture comprising sedimenting and floating solids by centrifugally separating, by a centrifugal separator, from the sedimenting and floating solids from the liquid-liquid- solid mixture in a batch operation (para. [0038]), the method comprising: providing the centrifugal separator, which comprises a rotatable bowl (rotating container 20, Fig. 1) configured to purify, into a purified liquid phase, the liquid-solid mixture containing sedimenting and floating solids from the liquid in a centrifugal field during batch operation (para. [0038]), wherein the bowl comprises a separating chamber (rotating container 20, Fig. 1); a liquid discharge (opening portion 21b, Fig. 1) configured to continuously discharge the purified liquid phase from the separating chamber during processing of the batch (“The development fatigue liquid Qw passes through the outer edge side of the inside disc 22 and overflows to the case 24 from the opening portion 21b of the container 20”, para. [0062]); and first and second solids-collecting regions provided at different radii of the rotatable bowl, wherein the first solids-collecting region (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1) is configured to collect a first lighter floating solid phase (first solid substance 36, Fig. 3) and the second solids-collecting region (inner wall 20g, Fig. 1) is configured to collect a second heavier sedimenting solids phase (second solid substance 37, Fig. 3) so that the first and second solids-collecting regions are fillable with the respective solid phase over time while the batch is being processed (para. [0088]); rotating the rotatable bowl and feeding the rotatable bowl with the liquid-solid mixture so that centrifugal separation takes place within the separating chamber between the liquid phase and the first lighter floating solids phase and the second heavier sedimenting solid phase heavier solids phase so that the first lighter floating solids phase is displaced into a center of the separating chamber by the medium-heavy liquid phase and the second heavier sedimenting solids phase flows into a region of the largest diameter on the inside of the bowl wall (para. [0038], Fig. 3); collecting the light floating solid phase in the center of the separating chamber in at least the first solids-collecting region (keeper discs 23, Fig. 1) and collecting the heavy sedimenting solid phase in the second solids-collecting region (inner wall 20g, Fig. 1) in the region of the largest diameter on the inside of a bowl wall (cylindrical trunk portion 20a, Fig. 1); and opening the rotatable bowl after processing the batch and discharging or removing the light floating solids and the heavy sedimenting solids from the open rotatable (para. [0045]).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Herman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,551,230, hereinafter Herman).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe does not disclose wherein the means for increasing the equivalent clarifying surface is a ribbed insert.
Herman discloses analogous art related to a centrifuge for separating particulate matter out of a circulating liquid, wherein the means for increasing the equivalent clarifying surface is a ribbed insert (spiral vane assembly 227, Fig. 18, or module 21, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a radial vane insert as taught by Herman for the discs in the separating chamber of Watanabe’s separator, for the purpose of reducing sedimentation distance and improve separation (col. 2 lines 56-67, Herman).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of High (U.S. Patent No. 4,037781).
Regarding claim 21, Watanabe does not disclose wherein the liquid discharge comprises one or more tubes, an inlet of the one or more tubes is located in the region of the central radius and through which the liquid is conducted out of the rotating bowl.
High discloses wherein the liquid discharge comprises one or more tubes, an inlet of the one or more tubes (discharge pipe 13, Fig. 2) is located in the region of the central radius and through which the liquid is conducted out of the rotating bowl. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the separator of Watanabe with the liquid discharge tube as taught by High for the purpose of draining off clarified liquid out of the rotating bowl formed during operation (col. 2 lines 48-58, High).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Wardwell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,143,183, hereinafter Wardwell).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe does not disclose a sensor arranged in the liquid discharge and configured to monitor a density of the discharged purified liquid phase.
Wardwell discloses a sensor arranged in the liquid discharge and configured to monitor a density of the discharged purified liquid phase (external sensors 34 that sense parameters of the input and output streams, including specific gravity, col. 6 line 62 – col. 7 line 13; sensors are used to sense or monitor parameters in all three streams, namely the input stream, the higher density output stream and the lighter density output stream, col. 17 lines 22-49). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the separator of Watanabe with a density (specific gravity) sensor monitoring the discharged liquid, as taught by Wardwell, for the purpose of real-time monitoring and control of centrifuge operation for cleaner effluent and greater efficiency (col. 4 lines 37-43, Wardwell).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Klimenta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0304846, hereinafter Klimenta).
Regarding claim 27, Watanabe discloses wherein the light floating solids are plastic particles (para. [0117] and [01210]), but does not disclose wherein the light floating solids and the heavy sedimenting solids are plastic particles.
Klimenta discloses analogous art related to separation of solids according to density in which the light floating solids (floating solids 17, Fig. 1) float to the surface of the separating liquid 18 and the heavy sedimenting solids (settleable solids 16, Fig. 1) settle on the inner shell surface of drum 11 (para. [0014]), and that the feed is often “a mixture of plastics with different densities” separated into floating and settleable solids (para. [0015]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Watanabe’s method to a mixture of plastic particles of different densities, as taught by Klimenta, for the purpose of recycling the separated fractions (para. [0015], Klimenta).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shuyi S. Liu/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
