DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “…with air stripping enhanced shallow sedimentation effect of spiral fins…” The phrase “effect of spiral fins” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if spiral fins are being required. No spiral fins are stated as a structural feature required in claim 1.
The claim states “the oil spill port (3) gets close to the top of the tank…” and “the water outlet pipe (11) gets close to the bottom of the tank”. These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “gets close to” is limiting the location of the oil spill port and water outlet pipe, limiting where fluid is removed from with the port and pipe, requiring movement of the port and pipe to “get close”, or something else. Further “close” is a relative term. It is not clear what distance would be considered “close”.
The claim states “the top of the center cylinder (13) sequentially passes through the swirl breaking structure (8) and the swirling inner cylinder (2) to stretch into lower oil receiving structure (4)”. It is not clear if “lower oil receiving structure” is a lower portion of the oil receiving structure or a separate structure.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim states “the center cylinder (13) passes through the shell (801) and are distributed inside the shell”. It is not clear what is distributed on the shell.
The claim refers to “every two adjacent breaking plates”, however no “adjacent” breaking plates have previously been required. It is therefore not clear if breaking plates are required to be adjacent of if discharge ports are only located if breaking plates are adjacent.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from indefinite claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/680,422 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose the vertical compact flotation unit with air stripping enhanced shallow sedimentation effect of spiral fins, comprising a tank (1), a swirling inner cylinder (2) (swirling inner cylinder 6), an oil receiving structure (4) (oil receiving structure 4), a swirl breaking structure (8) (swirl breaking structure 7), sedimentation separation components (9) (sloping plate sedimentation components 9) and a center cylinder (13) (central cylinder 11), wherein an exhaust port (5) (exhaust port 4) is formed in the top of the tank (1), a slag discharge port (15) (slag discharge port 13) is formed in the bottom of the tank (1), the side surface of the tank (1) is provided with an oil spill port (3) (oil spill port 5), a water outlet pipe (11) (water outlet pipe 12) and a water inlet pipe (7) (water inlet pipe 2), the oil spill port (3) gets close to the top of the tank (1) and communicates with the oil receiving structure (4), the water outlet pipe (11) gets close to the bottom of the tank (1) and is located below the center cylinder (13), and the water inlet pipe (7) is tangentially connected with the swirling inner cylinder (2); the center cylinder (13) is vertically arranged, the sedimentation separation components (9) are arranged on the center cylinder (13), and the top of the center cylinder (13) sequentially passes through the swirl breaking structure (8) and the swirling inner cylinder (2) to stretch into lower oil receiving structure (4) (leads to the oil receiving structure 3); the top of the swirl breaking structure (8) communicates with the swirling inner cylinder (2) (as all the features of the claim are connected the swirl breaking structure and swirling inner cylinder communicate with each other), and the swirl breaking structure (8) is used for destroying the swirling state of liquid and providing a laminar flow environment for a lower shallow sedimentation area (destroying the swirling state is the intended use, as the claims of the copending application disclose a swirl breaking structure this limitation is met); oil receiving ports (12) (an oil receiving port 10) matched with the sedimentation separation components (9) are formed in the center cylinder (13), and an oil phase separated by the sedimentation separation components (9) can enter the center cylinder (13) through the oil receiving ports (12) so that the oil phase floats upward in the center cylinder (13) to the oil receiving structure (4) (see claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 2-10 contain limitations not disclosed by the prior art or the claims of the copending application. The prior art, Frankiewicz (WO 2004/112936), teaches a swirling inner cylinder (vertical cylinder 44) (see pg. 12, last paragraph), an oil receiving structure (area 192) (see pg. 20, 1st paragraph), and a swirl breaking structure (“the function of plate 52 is to retain the vortex”) (see pg. 13, 1st paragraph). Frankiewicz further teaches a water inlet pipe is tangentially connected with the swirling inner cylinder(see pg. 13, 1st paragraph). The prior art, Weber (USPN 2,253,878), teaches a flotation unit with a center cylinder (tubular feed column 26) (see pg. 4, left column lines 3-8) and sedimentation separation components (trays 22) (pg. 4, right column lines 1-2). Weber further teaches oil receiving ports (openings 46) (receiving oil is considered to be the intended use of the ports) (see pg. 4, left column lines 15-17, fig, 1) matched with the sedimentation component formed in the center cylinder (see fig. 1).
The prior art does not teach the center cylinder sequentially passed through the swirl breaking structure and the swirling inner cylinder to stretch into lower oil receiving structure. It would not have been obvious to combine the features of Frankiewicz and Weber to reach the claimed invention at least because the oil receiving structure of Frankiewicz is positioned beside the swirling inner cylinder, therefore a center cylinder could not extend vertically into both the inner cylinder and the oil receiving structure of Frankiewicz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights