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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The applicant’s priority to provisional application 63195001 filed on May 29th, 2021 has been accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 30th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 submerged weir 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.
Additionally, in Fig. 12 All reference numerals are pointing to the edge of a black box.
Claim Interpretation
The terms “High-Energy”, “Transitional-Energy,” and “Low-Energy” are being interpreted as labels for different segments of the device.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12121908. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipated the claims of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The applicant is advised that claims 1-4 of the instant application are also anticipated by claim 1 of US-12121908 in a similar manner as outlined with regards to claim 3 of US-12121908
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 3, 7 and 9-15 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.
The term “in close proximity” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in close proximity ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “in close proximity” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in close proximity ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 7 will be interpreted as if the term “in close proximity” were removed
The term “in close proximity” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in close proximity ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the receptacle" in L5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as if it read “a receptacle.”
Claims 10, and 12-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eibl et al (US 10047342), hereafter Eibl further in view of Haubs et al. (US 20040139988), hereafter Haubs.
With regards to claim 1, Eibl discloses a method for separating a suspension into two flow streams concentrating designated suspended particles in one of the at least two flow streams(Abstract) comprising: feeding a suspension including a plurality of designated suspended particles (Col. 6, L1-4), into a first opening at a bottom of a receptacle (feed line 1) such that an influent upward velocity of the suspension at the first opening exceeds a settling velocity of the plurality of designated suspended particles in the suspension (Col. 6, L30-33); directing the suspension into a High-Energy Segment (HES) of the receptacle (entrance portion 7) from the first opening; increasing a flow-wise projected area of the HES of said receptacle until an average cross-sectional vertical fluid velocity of the suspension decreases to less than or equal to the settling velocity of the plurality of designated suspended particles, to trap the plurality of designated suspended particles (Col 4, L37-40); wherein, a remainder of the suspension enters a (lumen 6, Fig. 1) of the receptacle to dissipate energy, wherein, the remainder of the suspension then further proceeds vertically to enter a Low-Energy Segment (LES) of the receptacle to further dissipate energy (not labeled separately in Fig. 1, generally indicated by the line from 5a-5ab) of the receptacle to further dissipate energy (Fig. 1); withdrawing a Designated Particle Diluted (DPD) flow stream from a third opening at the top of the LES (via discharge line 2).
Eibl does not disclose withdrawing a Designated Particle Concentrated (DPC) flow stream containing the plurality of designated suspended particles, However, Haubs discloses withdrawing said particles designated for separation in a Designated Particle Concentrated (DPC) flow stream (via outlet orifice 30) from said HES (displacement region 36). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to remove the concentrated particles disclosed by Eibl in the manner disclosed by Haubs, in order to increase efficiency by removing the particles continually.
With regards to claim 2, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Eibl does not disclose wherein agitation occurs in said HES to prevent particle adherence to the receptacle and provide energy to mix the contents.
However, Haubs discloses wherein agitation (via agitator 40) occurs in said HES to prevent particle adherence to the receptacle and provide energy to mix the contents. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an agitator as disclosed by Hobbs to the receptacle disclosed by Eibl, in order to enhance separation (P0039).
With regards to claim 3, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. Eibl does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the agitator is in close proximity with an internal surface of the HES.
However, Haubs further discloses wherein at least a portion of the agitator is in close proximity with an internal surface of the HES (Fig. 1). Therefore, the combination of Eibl and Haubs discloses this feature.
With regards to claim 4, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. Eibl does not disclose wherein the agitating of the contents in the HES further comprises rotating or reciprocating the agitator within the HES to prevent adhesion of the plurality of suspended particles to the internal surface of the HES.
However, Haubs discloses wherein the agitating of the contents in the HES further comprises rotating or reciprocating the agitator within the HES to prevent adhesion of the plurality of suspended particles to the internal surface of the HES (P0063). Therefore, the combination of Eibl and Haubs discloses this feature.
With regards to claim 5, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Eibl further discloses wherein the TES modifies a first circumferential shape of the HES to a second circumferential shape of the LES, to facilitate an attachment of the HES to the LES (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 6, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Eibl further discloses wherein the HES has a conical shape (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 8, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Eibl and Haubs do not directly disclose herein the DPC flow stream exits the HES by falling over a submerged weir into a standpipe for removal. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that overflow weirs and pipes are known in the art and therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add in order to better control flow rates in the receptacle.
With regards to claim 9, Eibl discloses an apparatus for separating a suspension into two flow streams, concentrating suspended particles in one of the at least two flow streams, (Abstract), comprising: a High-Energy Segment (HES) (entrance portion 7), wherein, a bottom of the HES includes an entry opening (feed line 1) for the suspension to enter a receptacle (Fig. 1); wherein, the HES has a flow-wise projected area that increases from the bottom to a top of the HES to produce a decreasing up-flow velocity of the suspension in the HES (Col. 4, L11-19);
a Transitional-Energy Segment (TES) overlying the HES (lumen 6), Low-Energy Segment (LES) (widest part indicated by the line between 5a and 5b) overlying the TES, wherein the LES has a third opening at the top (discharge line 2); from which a Designated Particle Diluted (DPD) flow stream exits. Eibl does not disclose wherein, the HES has at least one exit opening for withdrawing one or more Designated Particle Concentrated (DPC) flow streams from the HES; wherein, an agitator is located within the HES.
However, Haubs discloses an exit opening (outlet orifice 30) for withdrawing one or more Designated Particle Concentrated (DPC) flow streams from the HES; It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to remove the concentrated particles disclosed by Eibl in the manner disclosed by Haubs, in order to increase efficiency by removing the particles continually.
Haubs further discloses wherein, an agitator (40) is located within the HES. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an agitator as disclosed by Hobbs to the receptacle disclosed by Eibl, in order to enhance separation (P0039).
With regards to claim 10, Eibl and Haubs discloses all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Eibl further discloses containing a suspension including a plurality of suspended particles (Abstract). The applicant is advised that the article worked on by an apparatus is not given any patentable weight (MPEP 2115).
With regards to claim 11, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Eibl does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the agitator is in close proximity with an internal surface of the HES.
However, Haubs further discloses wherein at least a portion of the agitator is in close proximity with an internal surface of the HES (Fig. 1). Therefore, the combination of Eibl and Haubs discloses this feature.
With regards to claim 12, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. Eibl does not disclose wherein the agitating of the contents in the HES further comprises rotating or reciprocating the agitator within the HES to prevent adhesion of the plurality of suspended particles to the internal surface of the HES.
However, Haubs discloses wherein the agitating of the contents in the HES further comprises rotating or reciprocating the agitator within the HES to prevent adhesion of the plurality of suspended particles to the internal surface of the HES (P0063). Therefore, the combination of Eibl and Haubs discloses this feature.
With regards to claim 13, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Eibl further discloses wherein the TES modifies a first circumferential shape of the HES to a second circumferential shape of the LES, to facilitate an attachment of the HES to the LES (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 14, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Eibl further discloses wherein the HES has a conical shape (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 15, Eibl and Haubs disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Eibl and Haubs do not directly disclose herein the DPC flow stream exits the HES by falling over a submerged weir into a standpipe for removal. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that overflow weirs and pipes are known in the art and therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add in order to better control flow rates in the receptacle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims once the Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are overcome.
Claim 7 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the agitator includes a fourth opening in a blade portion in contact with the internal surface of the HES, the fourth opening allowing the DPC flow stream to exit when the fourth opening aligns with the second opening of the HES.” There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of using an agitator hole to let a flow stream exit a receptacle as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm 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, Michael McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653