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 applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 form(s) submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 26 JULY 2024.
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 abstract is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01) by mentioning the centrifuge control protocol of claim 1.
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 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 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). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BIRCHFIELD et al. (US 2021/0016297 A1).
Claim 1: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses a centrifuge system (See Fig. 3, the centrifuge system is shown) for separating solids from a fluid flow ("This disclosure generally relates to methods and systems that control material separation systems. Materials to be separated may include solid-liquid mixtures that include liquid materials having various particulates disbursed therein. ", para [0060]), the centrifuge
system comprising: an inlet fluid conduit (Fig. 3, conduit 317, para [0077]) configured to receive a flow of raw fluid ("Pump 315 may be configured to pump the slurry to bowl 311 via conduit 317.", para [0077]); an outlet fluid conduit (Fig. 3, conduit 325, para [0077]) configured to receive a flow of effluent fluid ("The remaining portions of the slurry
(liquid effluent LE) may be ejected from centrifuge 310 via conduit 325.", para [0077]);
an effluent sensor (Fig. 3, analysis assembly 350B, sensor 370, para [00801) located along the outlet fluid conduit (See Fig. 3, the effluent sensor 350b, 370 is shown located along the outlet fluid conduit.) and configured to determine a density of the effluent fluid received by the outlet fluid conduit ("Similarly, analysis assembly 350B may be configured to automatically sample an effluent flowing through conduit
325, and to automatically transmit data, characterizing the sampled effluent, to computer or processor circuit 330.", para [0080]; "Table 4, above, provides a list of centrifuge measured parameters, according to an example embodiment. Measured parameters that characterize material separation processes of the centrifuge include density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, and particle size distribution.", para
[00931); a centrifuge (Fig. 3, centrifuge 310, para [00761) comprising an inlet (See Fig. 3, the inlet of the centrifuge is shown to be the area that connects to the inlet conduit 317.) configured to receive the raw fluid from the inlet fluid conduit, an effluent outlet (See Fig. 3, the effluent outlet of the centrifuge is shown to be the area that connects to the conduit 325.) configured to discharge the effluent fluid received by the outlet fluid conduit, and a solids outlet (See Fig. 3, the solids outlet of the centrifuge is shown to be the area that connects to the conduit 324.) configured to discharge solids separated from the raw fluid by the centrifuge; a bowl (Fig. 3, bowl 311, para [0076]) rotatable about a rotational axis (See Fig. 1, there is shown to be a rotational axis through the
longitudinal center of the bowl 311.) of the centrifuge, and a conveyor (Fig. 3, conveyor 312, para [00761) located within the bowl and configured to rotate about the rotational axis (See Fig. 3, the conveyor 312 is shown to be rotatable about the rotational axis.), wherein the conveyor is configured to separate solids present in the raw fluid received by the inlet to thereby produce the effluent fluid discharged at the effluent outlet ("Bowl 311 may be driven by bowl motor 319 via pulley arrangement 320, and screw conveyor 312 may be driven by conveyor motor 321 via gear box 323. HGS, which are separated from the slurry, may be discharged from centrifuge 310 through conduit 324. The remaining portions of the slurry (liquid effluent LE) may be ejected from centrifuge 310 via conduit 325.", para [0077]); a feed pump (Fig. 3, pump 315, para [0076]) in fluid communication with both the inlet fluid conduit and the inlet of the centrifuge, wherein
the feed pump is configured to pump the raw fluid to the inlet of the centrifuge at a selected flowrate ("Computer or processor circuit 330 may further receive data from, and provide control signals, to VFD systems 331, 332, and 334 (e.g., see FIG. 3) that, in turn, control bowl drive motor speed 319, screw conveyor drive motor speed 321, pump drive motor speed and flow rate 335 - para [0141]; the feed pump is shown to pump the raw fluid at a selected pump speed and flowrate; and a controller (Fig. 3, computer or processor circuit 330, para [0076]) connected to the effluent sensor and the centrifuge (See Fig. 3, the processor circuit 330 is shown connected to both the effluent sensor and the centrifuge.), wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust at least one of a speed of the feed pump, a rotational speed of the bowl of the centrifuge about the rotational axis, and a rotational speed of the conveyor of the centrifuge about the rotational axis in response to a change in the density of the effluent fluid as determined by the effluent sensor ("For example, a system may be configured to measure at least one parameter of an effluent including feed density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, particle distribution, and flow rate. Results of such measurements may then be used by the control system to adjust one or more of a bowl speed, a conveyor speed, a pump speed, a differential speed, and a pump flow rate to obtain desired results based on relationships such as those described above with reference to Table 6." The subject matter of claom 1 is further disclosed in the following paragpahs:
[0009] The sensor may be configured to measure one or more properties associated with the centrifuge, the shaker effluent, and/or the centrifuge effluent, which may include a density; a viscosity; a turbidity; a pond depth; and a torque load associated with one or more centrifuge motors.
[0076] FIG. 3 is a schematic representation of a centrifuge 310 with an automatic sampling and control system, according to an example embodiment. Centrifuge 310 may be a decanter style centrifuge. In this example, centrifuge 310 includes a bowl 311, a screw conveyor 312, a pump 315, a bowl drive motor 319, a screw conveyor drive motor 321, and a pump motor 335. Centrifuge 310 may further include a bowl variable frequency drive (VFD) system 332 that is operatively arranged to drive bowl drive motor 319; a conveyor VFD system 331 that is operatively arranged to drive screw conveyor drive motor 321; a pump VFD system 334 that is operatively arranged to drive the pump drive motor; and at least one computer or processor circuit 330 electrically and operationally connected to bowl VFD 332, conveyor VFD 331, and the pump VFD 334.
[0077] Conveyor drive motor 321 may be coupled to conveyor 312 via gearbox 323. Centrifuge 310 may be configured to receive a slurry via conduit 345 connected to pump 315. Pump 315 may be configured to pump the slurry to bowl 311 via conduit 317. Bowl 311 may be driven by bowl motor 319 via pulley arrangement 320, and screw conveyor 312 may be driven by conveyor motor 321 via gear box 323. HGS, which are separated from the slurry, may be discharged from centrifuge 310 through conduit 324. The remaining portions of the slurry (liquid effluent LE) may be ejected from centrifuge 310 via conduit 325. Bowl 311 may be supported by bearings 327 and 329, which may have sensors in communication with computer or processor circuit 330 via lines 340 and 341, respectively.
[0078] A speed of conveyor motor 321 and direction information may be calculated by VFD 331 and may be communicated to conveyor VFD 331 via line 342. Line 333 provides a communication link between conveyor VFD 331 and computer or processor circuit 330. Conveyor VFD 331, bowl VFD 332, and pump VFD 334 may communicate with computer or processor circuit 330 over a communication network, for example, using lines 333, 314, and 360, respectively. Many different types of wired and wireless communication networks may be used. A remote computer 337 may be linked to computer 330 by a communication channel, including, but not limited to hardwire line 338 or by a wireless channel. In this regard, troubleshooting or operation of centrifuge 310 may be monitored and controlled from a remote location.
[0079] In an example embodiment, a computer or processor circuit 330 may include a display device 378. Computer or processor circuit 330 may be configured to provide control signals to centrifuge 310 and to control various parameters of centrifuge 310 such as a recommended liquid level (i.e., a pond level) of centrifuge 310. Various parameters and operating status data may be displayed on display device 378. In certain embodiments, an operator may interface directly with computer 330, via a local operator control panel 399, or via remote computer 337 with a remote internet or intranet connection to computer or processor circuit 330. In this way, an operator may monitor and control centrifuge 310 while on site or to monitor centrifuge 310 remotely from an off-site location. Additional hardware may allow remote visual monitoring of centrifuge 310 from an off-site location or from an on-site in situations where components of the apparatus may be difficult to access.
[0080] Centrifuge 310 may include an analysis assembly 350A connected to conduit 317 that connects pump 315 and bowl 311. Analysis assemblies 350A and 350B may include sensors 370 that are electrically an operationally connected to computer or processor circuit 330, for example, via lines 339. Analysis assembly 350A may be configured to automatically sample a slurry that is pumped through conduit 317 to bowl 311, and to automatically transmit data, characterizing the sampled slurry, to computer or processor circuit 330. Similarly, analysis assembly 350B may be configured to automatically sample an effluent flowing through conduit 325, and to automatically transmit data, characterizing the sampled effluent, to computer or processor circuit 330.
[0111] In further embodiments, various control systems and methods may rely on various measured parameters. For example, a system may be configured to measure at least one parameter of an effluent including feed density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, particle distribution, and flow rate. Results of such measurements may then be used by the control system to adjust one or more of a bowl speed, a conveyor speed, a pump speed, a differential speed, and a pump flow rate to obtain desired results based on relationships such as those described above with reference to Table 6.
[0141] Computer or processor circuit 330, described above with reference to FIG. 3, is an example of computer system 1600, described in greater detail below. Computer or processor circuit 330 may be configured to gather measurement data and to provide control signals to the various components of the system. For example, computer processor circuit 330 may include a personal computer (PC) and/or a programmable logic controller (PLC). The computer processor circuit 330 may receive measurement data from the one or more flow/density/viscosity meters 814a, 908, one or more drilling fluid analyzers 814b (e.g., see FIGS. 8 and 9), turbidity sensors, temperature sensors, viscosity sensors, particle count sensors, etc. Computer or processor circuit 330 may control laser 1108 and/or NIR 1110 sources (e.g., see FIG. 11) and may further receive measurement data from corresponding laser and/or NIR sensors (not shown). Computer or processor circuit 330 may further receive data from, and provide control signals, to VFD systems 331, 332, and 334 (e.g., see FIG. 3) that, in turn, control bowl drive motor 319, screw conveyor drive motor 321, pump drive motor 335, etc. Computer or processor circuit 330 may also control various valves 810a to 810i (e.g., see FIG. 8), scale 1106, and oven 1112 (e.g., see FIG. 11).
Thus, the controller and control protocol recited in claim 1 is clearly met by BIRCHFIELD et al. TABLE 6 merely expresses the changes in effluent density generated by variances in centrifuge operational parameters such as bowl speed, differential speed, pump flow rate, and pond depth under the process control of the control system as expressed above, especially in [0111]; and control processing of the VFD drives to control the operational speed of VFD systems 331, 332, and 334 (e.g., see FIG. 3) that, in turn, control bowl drive motor 319, screw conveyor drive motor 321, pump drive motor 335, etc. per [0141].
Claim 2: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses a bowl drive (Fig. 3, bowl drive motor 319, para [00761) connected to the bowl of the centrifuge and the controller and configured to control the rotational speed of the bowl (See Fig. 3, the bowl motor 319 is shown to control a rotational speed of the bowl.); a conveyor drive (Fig. 3, conveyor drive motor 321, para [00761) connected to the conveyor of the centrifuge and the controller and
configured to control the rotational speed of the conveyor (See Fig. 3, the conveyor motor 321 is shown to control a rotational speed of the conveyor); and a pump drive (Fig. 3, pump motor 335, para [0076]) connected to the feed pump and the controller and configured to control the speed of the feed pump (See Fig. 3, the pump motor 335 is shown to control a rotational speed of the pump.).
Claim 3: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses wherein each of the bowl drive, the conveyor drive, and the pump drive comprises-a variable frequency drive (VFD) (Fig. 3, conveyor VFD 331, bowl VFD 332, pump VFD 334, para [0076]).
Claim 6: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to
automatically decrease a speed of the feed pump in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been met ("For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds.", para [0106]; para [0009]; para [0110]).
Claim 7: BIRCHFIELD et al. wherein the alarm torque limit comprises at least
one of a bowl alarm torque limit associated with the bowl of the centrifuge, a conveyor alarm torque limit associated with the conveyor of the centrifuge, and a feed pump alarm torque limit associated with the feed pump ("A torque load on one or more motors may be affected by the flow rate and/or by the conveyor/bowl differential speed. An increase in flow rate may lead to a decrease in torque load. Changing a differential speed, however, may be a faster or more efficient way.to decrease a torque load. For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds. Alternatively, in certain embodiments, increasing a differential speed by one or two revolutions per minute (RPM) can significantly reduce the torque in a matter of a few seconds.", para [0106]).
Claim 9: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses a method of operating a centrifuge system (See Fig. 3, the centrifuge system is shown.) for separating solids from a fluid flow ("This disclosure generally relates to methods and systems that control material separation systems. Materials to be separated may include solid-liquid mixtures that include liquid materials having various particulates disbursed therein. ", para [0060]), the
method comprising: (a) pumping a flow of a raw fluid by a feed pump (Fig. 3, pump 315, para [0076]) to an inlet (See Fig. 3, the inlet of the centrifuge is shown to be the area that connects to the inlet conduit 317) of a centrifuge (Fig. 3, centrifuge 310, para [0076]) of the centrifuge system; (b) operating the centrifuge to separate solids present in the raw fluid received by the inlet to thereby produce an effluent fluid from the raw
fluid ("This disclosure generally relates to methods and systems that control material separation systems. Materials to be separated may include solid-liquid mixtures that include liquid materials having various particulates disbursed therein. ", para [0060]);
(c) discharging a flow of the effluent fluid from an effluent outlet ("The remaining portions of the slurry (liquid effluent LE) may be ejected from centrifuge 310 via conduit 325.", para [0077]) of the centrifuge; (d) discharging a flow of solids separated from the raw fluid from a solids outlet (Fig. 3, conduit 324, para [0077]) of the centrifuge; (e) determining a density of the flow of the effluent fluid discharged from the centrifuge by an effluent sensor (Fig. 3, analysis assembly 3508, sensor 370, para [0080]; "Similarly, analysis assembly 3508 may be configured to automatically sample an effluent flowing through conduit 325, and to automatically transmit data, characterizing the sampled effluent, to computer or processor circuit 330.", para [0080]; "Table 4, above, provides a list of centrifuge measured parameters, according to an example embodiment. Measured parameters that characterize material separation processes of the centrifuge include density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, and particle size distribution.", para [0093]); and (f) automatically adjusting by a controller (Fig. 3, computer or processor circuit 330, para [0076]) of the centrifuge system at least one operational parameter of the centrifuge system in response to a change in the density of the effluent fluid as determined by the effluent sensor ("For example, a system may be configured to measure at least one parameter of an effluent including feed density, viscosity,
turbidity, solids content, particle distribution, and flow rate. Results of such measurements may then be used by the control system to adjust one or more of a bowl speed, a conveyor speed, a pump speed, a differential speed, and a pump flow rate to obtain desired results based on relationships such as those described above with reference to Table 6.", para [0111]).
Claim 13: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses (g) automatically decreasing by the controller a speed of the feed pump in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been met (" For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds.", para [0009]; para [0106]; and para [0110]).
Claim 14: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses wherein the alarm torque limit comprises at least one of a bowl alarm torque limit associated with the bowl of the centrifuge, and a conveyor alarm torque limit associated with the conveyor of the centrifuge, and a feed pump alarm torque limit associated with the feed pump ("A torque load on one or more motors may be affected by the flow rate and/or by the conveyor/bowl differential speed. An increase in flow rate may lead to a decrease in torque load. Changing a differential speed, however, may be a faster or more efficient way to decrease a torque load. For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge' (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds. Alternatively, in certain embodiments, increasing a differential speed by one or two revolutions per minute (RPM) can significantly reduce the torque in a matter of a few seconds."; para [0009]; para [0106]; and para [0110]).
Claim 10: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses a method of operating a centrifuge system (See Fig. 3, the centrifuge system is shown.) for separating solids from a fluid flow ("This disclosure generally relates to methods and systems that control material separation systems. Materials to be separated may include solid-liquid mixtures that include liquid materials having various particulates disbursed therein. ", para [0060]), the
method comprising: (a) pumping a flow of a raw fluid by a feed pump (Fig. 3, pump 315, para [0076]) to an inlet (See Fig. 3, the inlet of the centrifuge is shown to be the area that connects to the inlet conduit 317) of a centrifuge (Fig. 3, centrifuge 310, para [0076]) of the centrifuge system; (b) rotating both a bowl (Fig. 3, bowl 311, para [0076]) and a conveyor (Fig. 3, conveyor 312, para [0076]) of the centrifuge about a
rotational axis of the centrifuge system to separate solids present in the raw fluid received by the inlet to thereby produce an effluent fluid ("This disclosure generally relates to methods and systems that control material separation systems. Materials to be separated may include solid-liquid mixtures that include liquid materials having various particulates disbursed therein. ", para [0060]); (c) discharging a flow of the effluent fluid from an effluent outlet ("The remaining portions of the slurry (liquid effluent LE) may be ejected from centrifuge 310 via conduit 325.", para [0077]) of the centrifuge;
(d) discharging a flow of solids separated from the raw fluid from a solids outlet (Fig. 3, conduit 324, para [0077]) of the centrifuge; (e) determining a density of the flow of the effluent fluid discharged from the centrifuge by an effluent sensor (Fig. 3, analysis assembly 350B, sensor 370, para [0080]; "Similarly, analysis assembly 350B may be configured to automatically sample an effluent flowing through conduit 325, and to automatically transmit data, characterizing the sampled effluent, to computer or processor circuit 330.", para [0080]; "Table 4, above, provides a list of centrifuge measured parameters, according to an example embodiment. Measured parameters that characterize material separation processes of the centrifuge include density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, and particle size distribution.", para [0093]); and
(f) automatically adjusting by a controller (Fig. 3, computer or processor circuit 330, para [0076]) of the centrifuge system at least one of a speed of the feed pump, a rotational speed of the bowl of the centrifuge about the rotational axis, and a rotational speed of the conveyor of the centrifuge about the rotational axis in response to a change in the density of the effluent fluid as determined by the effluent sensor ("For example, a system may be configured to measure at least one parameter of an effluent including feed density, viscosity, turbidity, solids content, particle distribution, and flow rate. Results of such measurements may then be used by the control system to adjust one or
more of a bowl speed, a conveyor speed, a pump speed, a differential speed, and a pump flow rate to obtain desired results based on relationships such as those described above with reference to Table 6.", para [0111]).
Claim 18: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses (g) automatically decreasing by the controller the speed of the feed pump in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been met (" For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds.", para [0106]).
Claim 19: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses wherein the alarm torque limit comprises at least one of a bowl alarm torque limit associated with the bowl of the. centrifuge, and a conveyor alarm torque limit associated with the conveyor of the centrifuge, and a feed pump alarm torque limit associated with the feed pump ("A torque load on one or more motors may be affected by the flow rate and/or by the conveyor/bowl differential speed. An increase in flow rate may lead to a decrease in torque load. Changing a differential speed, however, may be a faster or more efficient way to decrease a torque load. For example, in certain situations, turning off the feed to the centrifuge (i.e., reducing the flow rate to zero) may lead to torque load decreasing on a time scale of thirty to sixty seconds. Alternatively, in certain embodiments, increasing a differential speed by one or two revolutions per minute (RPM) can significantly reduce the torque in a matter of a few seconds.", para [0106]).
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.
This application currently 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).
Claims 4, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIRCHFIELD et al.
Claim 4: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses further wherein the controller comprises a memory device (Fig. 16, memory 1606, 1608, para [01431) and discloses wherein the memory device may include instructions ("Secondary memory 1608 may include, for example, a hard disk drive 1610, removable storage drive 1612. Removable storage drive 1612 may include a floppy disk drive, a magnetic tape drive, an optical disk drive, a flash memory, or the like. The removable storage drive 1612 may be configured to
read and/or write data to a removable storage unit 1614 in a well-known manner. Removable storage unit 1614 may include a floppy disk, magnetic tape, optical disk, etc., which is read by and written to, by removable storage drive 1612. As will be appreciated by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art, removable storage unit 1614 may include a computer readable storage medium having computer software
(i.e., computer program instructions) and/or data stored thereon.", para [0143]), but does not specifically disclose a memory device in which a preset rotational speed of the bowl, a preset rotational speed of the conveyor, and a preset initial speed of the feed pump are stored. While BIRCHFIELD et al. does not specifically disclose a memory device in which a preset rotational speed of the bowl, a preset rotational speed of the conveyor, and a preset initial speed of the feed pump are stored, it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could have been used to have arrived at a memory device in which a preset rotational speed of the
bowl, a preset rotational speed of the conveyor, and a preset initial speed of the feed pump are stored. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have arrived at a memory device in which a preset rotational speed of the bowl, a preset rotational speed of the conveyor, and a preset initial speed of the feed pump are stored, in order to have allowed the system to operate under optimum conditions during startup.
Claim 8: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses the controller receiving data and automatically
adjusting the system based on the data ("a processor-implemented method includes the steps of receiving, by a processor circuit, time dependent data characterizing drilling fluids associated with a well, the drilling fluids having been processed by a solid-liquid separation system; determining recommended changes to one or more operating parameters of the solid-liquid separation system based on an analysis of the data; generating a time dependent control signal based on the recommended changes; and automatically providing the control signal to a component of the solid-liquid separation system to thereby cause a change in an operational parameter of the solid liquid
separation system", para [0013]); but does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to automatically shut down operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. While BIRCHFIELD et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to automatically shut down operation of the centrifuge in
response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could have been used to have arrived at the controller is configured to automatically shut down operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have arrived at the controller is configured to automatically shut down operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, in order to have protected the equipment from damage due to unsafe torque values.
Claim 15: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses the controller receiving data and automatically adjusting the system based on the data ("a processor-implemented method includes the steps of receiving, by a processor circuit, time dependent data characterizing drilling fluids associated with a well, the drilling fluids having been processed by a solid-liquid separation system; determining recommended changes to one or more operating parameters of the solid-liquid separation system based on an analysis of the
data; generating a time dependent control signal based on the recommended changes; and automatically providing the control signal to a component of the solid-liquid separation system to thereby cause a change in an operational parameter of the solid-liquid separation system", para [0013]); but does not specifically disclose further comprising: (g) automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. While BIRCHFIELD et al. does not specifically disclose automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, it is
well known in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could have been used to have arrived at automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have arrived at automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, in order to have protected the equipment from damage due to unsafe torque values.
Claim 20: BIRCHFIELD et al. discloses the controller receiving data and automatically adjusting the system based on the data ("a processor-implemented method includes the steps of receiving, by a processor circuit, lime dependent data characterizing drilling fluids associated with a well, the drilling fluids having been processed by a solid-liquid separation system; determining recommended changes to one or more operating parameters of the solid-liquid separation system based on an analysis of the
data; generating a time dependent control signal based on the recommended changes; and automatically providing the control signal to a component of the solid-liquid separation system to thereby cause a change in an operational parameter of the solid-liquid separation system", para [0013]); but does not specifically disclose further comprising: (g) automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. While BIRCHFIELD et al. does not specifically disclose automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could have been used to have arrived at automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at automatically shutting down by the controller operation of the centrifuge in response to the controller determining that an alarm torque limit of the centrifuge has been exceeded, in order to have protected the equipment from damage due to unsafe torque values.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIRCHFIELD et al. in view of KIRSCH (US 7387602).
Assuming that BIRCHFIELD et al. does not suggest the recited shut down procedure when centrifuge torque value(s) are exceeded, KIRSCH discloses a centrifuge that comprises a bowl and screw conveyor, each of which is driven by an electric motor. A danger in operating this type of centrifuge in some applications is that one or both of the motors may be presented with a load that will require the motor(s) to exceed rated torque. This could lead to motor failure and machine overload, in some circumstances, and to system shutdown. In some applications, such as oil well drilling, for example, down-time caused by centrifuge failure could be extremely expensive. One obvious solution to this problem known in the art is to simply monitor motor torque and shut down the entire system when overload occurs. Another known solution is to simply shut off the feed pump (which supplies a slurry to the centrifuge for separation) when overload occurs. Both of these known solutions are unsatisfactory, however, as they both adversely affect overall system performance and/or efficiency. In a solution to this problem in the parent patent of which this patent claims priority, predetermined limits were imposed on operating torque of both the conveyor and bowl motors. A drawback of this solution, however, is that the operator had no control over the predetermined torque limits and, under some operating conditions, the operator might want to run the motors within different limits. Another problem in existing centrifuge systems is that some users/operators have existing pump/gear box assemblies that they would like to use with a newly installed centrifuge. Heretofore, this was not possible, because the computer controlled centrifuges were not programmed to run with third party (i.e., other than OEM) pumps. What is needed, then, is a method and apparatus for centrifuging which continuously monitors motor torques, permits operators to preset torque limits for conveyor and bowl motors, adjusts centrifuge operation automatically as load conditions change to ensure safe motor operation and efficient system operation, and can be used with customers' existing feed pumps.
A general object of the invention is to provide a method and apparatus for centrifuging which protects against centrifuge shutdown due to overloading of centrifuge motors. FIGS. 13-17 are flow charts illustrating the logic of the alarm and shutdown subroutine. The present invention comprises three general levels of security with respect to operation. First, under some user-selected preprogrammed modes, the system automatically adjusts pump speed and flow while preventing the conveyor and bowl motors from operating in an overload condition, that is, above rated torque. Importantly, this is accomplished while holding bowl speed constant and screw conveyor speed constant (and therefor holding their respective motor speeds constant). Second, in the event rated torque is developed by either of the motors, the system in some modes will shut down the pump. Third, in the event either of the centrifuge motors begins to operate at a dangerous level above rated torque, the system in some modes will shut down the entire system, that is, the pump and the centrifuge will shut down. The torque limit for pump shutdown (level 2) and system shutdown (level 3) are predetermined and programmed into the computer of the invention.
The operator can preset an upper operating torque limit for the screw conveyor and bowl motors. In operation, the feed pump motor is controlled by the above-mentioned PID feedback loop until such time as the operating torque developed by either the screw conveyor motor or bowl motor exceeds the operator determined preset limit for either motor, at which time the computer control stops operation of the feed pump. At higher levels of developed operating torque (preprogrammed), the bowl and conveyor motors are shut down, and, at even higher predetermined levels, the entire centrifuge system is shut down.
The centrifuge of the present invention can be operated in either a manual or automatic mode. In a manual mode, the operator sets bowl motor speed and conveyor motor speed (by setting the differential speed) and also sets the input pump GPM. The computer monitors torque developed by the screw conveyor motor and bowl motor. If developed torques exceed a first preset limit, the pump motor shuts down. If developed torques exceed a second preset limit, the conveyor and bowl motors shut down. In the automatic mode, the computer takes over control of the pump motor to ensure that the torque developed by the conveyor and/or bowl motors do not exceed predetermined limits. If the developed torques approach these predetermined limits, the computer "backs off" on the pump, by decreasing speed and/or flow to reduce the load presented to the centrifuge motors. In a preferred embodiment and operating mode described in this patent, the operator can preset a desired operating torque (as a percentage of rated torque) for the bowl and conveyor motor (the preset torque value is a target for either the bowl or conveyor motor, whichever develops this percentage of rated torque first controls.) In this auto control mode, the computer controls the pump to achieve the desired operating torque level. As in the previously described modes, however, if the load causes an overload condition for either the bowl or conveyor motor, the computer is programmed to first shut down the pump drive motor, and, at a higher torque overload condition, to shut down the centrifuge motors (conveyor and bowl motors). Thus, the present invention enables multiple modes of operation, some being predefined and some being user configurable. Predefined modes consist of typical settings for Solids Removal and Barite Recovery. If these pre-defined settings are not sufficient or optimum, custom setups can be saved by the operator and recalled by clicking a single button. Additionally, feed pump control can be automatic or manual. Automatic control, primarily designed for Barite Recovery, maximizes centrifuge throughput by employing a PID (proportional-integral-derivative) loop. This increases pump output to the centrifuge until the operator input torque set point is reached on either the bowl or conveyor drive motors. If properties of the feed slurry change, the PID loop will dynamically adjust pump output to maintain the torque set point (the operator actually sets motor speed, and thereby impliedly sets the torque set points). This enables even less experienced operators to safely and effectively operate and monitor the apparatus.
If the operator clicks the MANUAL OPERATION button in the screen shown in FIG. 18, the screen shown in FIG. 19 appears. The screen of FIG. 19 allows an operator to monitor and/or set Bowl Speed, Differential Speed (and therefore Conveyor Speed) and Feed Pump GPM. On this screen, the operator selects and sets (by mouse interaction with the up/down (.tangle-solidup./) icons on the screen) desired Input Bowl RPM and Input Conveyor Differential RPM which indirectly sets the screw conveyor speed (the conveyor differential RPM is the difference between the bowl RPM and the screw conveyor RPM). In the example shown, the operator has set the bowl speed at 3000 RPM, and the conveyor differential speed at 50 RPM. In the MANUAL OPERATION mode, the operator can also set the pump flow rate (as shown under the Pump Status column) and, in the example shown in FIG. 19, the operator has set the pump to a flow rate of 30 GPM. Once the desired parameters are set (as indicated as "black on white" numbers in the fields adjacent the up/down icons), the operator can start the centrifuge by clicking on the START button under the word CENTRIFUGE, and can start the feed pump by clicking on the START button under the words FEED PUMP. Once the centrifuge and pump have been started (FIG. 19 shows the centrifuge in STOP mode), the actual measured bowl speed (0 RPM), bowl motor developed torque as a percentage of rated torque (0%), differential speed (0 RPM), screw conveyor motor developed torque as a percentage of rated torque (0%), pump speed, and pump output GPM are displayed. (In FIG. 19, the bowl speed and torque, differential speed and torque, pump speed and pump output GPM are all zero because the operator has not yet started the feed pump). In FIG. 19, these measured parameters are shown as "black on gray" in fields under their respective headings, under the general headings "Bowl Status", "Conveyor Status", and "Pump Status", respectively. This screen also displays enclosure temperature and centrifuge run time. The preset settings from this screen can be saved as Custom Modes for future use by clicking on the appropriate Custom Mode button (1, 2 or 3) under the SAVE AS wording on the upper right of the screen. This screen also provides the operator with an Alarm/Shutdown Summary in the window at the bottom of the screen, where he can view or acknowledge the most recent alarm. Examples of alarm conditions include a centrifuge motor exceeding rated torque, excessive bearing temperature or vibration, excessive enclosure temperature, and a number of other conditions. Finally, this screen includes icons for selecting manual or automatic pump running modes (in FIG. 19, pump running mode is selected as manual as evidenced by the "black on gray" status of this icon). The operator would select automatic operation by clicking on the Pump Auto Ctrl button. As described previously, in the automatic mode, the computer would automatically control the pump to meet preselected or predetermined torque operating conditions.
Selection of the SOLIDS REMOVAL button on the screen shown in FIG. 18 launches the screen shown in FIG. 20. This mode includes preset (at the factory) settings for desired bowl speed (e.g., 3000 RPM) and conveyor differential speed (70 RPM) to achieve a desired consistency of separation of the slurry. As the slurry is presented to the motors as a load, each motor (bowl and conveyor) develops the necessary torque to meet the demands of the load at the preset speeds. The operator can change the preset speeds during operation. In FIG. 20, the operator has started the centrifuge, as indicated by the display of bowl RPM and conveyor differential RPM, but has not yet activated the feed pump (by clicking on the START button under the words FEED PUMP). Once he starts the feed pump, the computer will automatically display the speed and flow of the pump. In this and other manual and automatic modes of operation in a preferred embodiment, the computer is programmed to monitor torques developed by the conveyor and bowl motors and continuously (at a sampling rate of approximately 50 ms) compare the developed torque to rated torque. If the developed torque of either motor reaches a first preset level (above rated torque), the computer will shut down the pump. If the developed torque of either motor reaches a second preset level above the first preset level, the computer will shut down the centrifuge (by shutting down the conveyor and bowl motors). Again, in the BARITE RECOVERY mode, the operator has an option to run the system manually or automatically. As can be seen by the "black on gray" status of the PUMP RUNNING IN MANUAL button, the Barite Recovery mode of FIG. 21 is set for manual. However, it should be appreciated that the Barite Recovery mode may be set for the automatic, as indicated by the PUMP AUTO CTRL button shown on the screen. In the automatic mode, the pump speed and flow rate are automatically controlled in response to measured torque from the screw conveyor and bowl motors. It should also be appreciated that, although the auto control mode is described herebelow with respect to a barite recovery program in an oil drilling application, this mode of operation obviously has many other applications.
By clicking the Auto Control Setup button of the screen in FIG. 23, the AUTO CONTROL SETUP window of FIG. 27 is opened, which allows an operator to set the centrifuge to automatically operate according to operator defined parameters based on bowl and conveyor drive motor developed torques. As shown in FIG. 27, the operator has preset the desired torque operating level to 75%, but this level can be modified by clicking the up/down icons. Once the torque level is set, the centrifuge will automatically regulate feed pump output until the developed torque by the conveyor motor OR the conveyor motor reaches the set-point (whichever motor reaches this level first). The computer will maintain this operating condition. It should be appreciated that, in this mode, both the conveyor motor and bowl motors are operating at constant, albeit possible/probably different speeds, while the pump motor speed and flow are regulated. It should also be appreciated that, even in this mode, it is possible that the feed will cause a motor overload, and that at a first overload condition (as determined by developed motor torque) the system will shut down the pump, and at a second higher torque overload condition, the conveyor and bowl motors will shut down. It should be appreciated that these alarm conditions can be determined by measuring developed torque or operating current.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the controller protocol of the BIRCHFIELD et al. centrifuge with a shut down configuration in response to excessive toque being sensed as clearly taught by KIRSCH for the purpose of preventing machine overload conditions and machine failure (as outlined above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10-12, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest wherein the controller is configured to automatically increase at least one of the speed of the feed pump from the preset initial speed of the feed pump
by a predetermined feed pump speed increment, the rotational speed of the bowl from the preset rotational speed of the bowl by a predetermined bowl rotational speed increment, and the rotational speed of the conveyor from the preset rotational speed of the conveyor by a predetermined conveyor rotational speed increment; the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest automatically adjusting by the controller at least one operational parameter from the preset initial value by a predetermined increment; and the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest wherein (f) comprises automatically increasing at least one of the speed of the feed pump from the initial pump speed, the rotational speed of the bowl of the centrifuge from the initial bowl speed, and the rotational speed of the conveyor of the centrifuge from an initial conveyor speed in response to a change in the density of the effluent fluid as determined by the effluent sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses centrifuges with centrifuge control systems.
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: 29 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights