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
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-14, 16-20 drawn to a centrifugal separator.
Group II, claim(s) 15, drawn to a method for cleaning contaminants.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a centrifugal separator, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 20210121896 A1. In this case, citations associated with the prior art US 20210121896 A1 is provided for the special technical feature in parentheses:
A centrifugal separator for cleaning gas containing contaminants, said separator comprising (Figs. 2A-2B) a stationary casing (housing 30) enclosing a separation space through which a gas flow is permitted; a gas inlet (fluid inlet 42) extending through the stationary casing and permitting supply of the gas to be cleaned (par [0024]); a rotating member comprising a plurality of separation members arranged in said separation space and being arranged to rotate around an axis of rotation (filter element 26 and the shaft 25 may be rotatably fixed to each other; pars [0024]-[0025]); a gas outlet (fluid inlet 42) arranged in the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of cleaned gas and comprising an outlet opening through a wall of the stationary casing (par [0024]); a drainage outlet (fluid outlet 44) arranged in the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of liquid contaminants separated from the gas to be cleaned; a turbine casing in which a turbine wheel that is drivingly connected to the rotating member is arranged (turbine assembly 22); and a nozzle (drive jet 52, which may be an integrated impulse tangential drive nozzle or jet) arranged for directing a jet of pressurized liquid towards the turbine wheel, thereby rotating said turbine wheel (par [0039]; Fig. 2B-3).
In a telephone voice message from Qing Lin on September 24, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14 and 16-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04.
Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 5, “1-6 bars”
Claim 14 line 3, “separation discs [[1]]”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axial extension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent "an axial extension" was not previously recited.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent "a bottom surface " was not previously recited.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inner area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent "an inner area" was not previously recited. Additionally, the relationship between the limitations the center c1 and the inner area of the turbine casing is unclear because the portion of the turbine casing that constitutes an inner area is not defined by the claim. Accordingly, the claim language define the limitation "the inner area" is indeterminate. The scope of the claim is unclear. Lastly, the limitations "the centre c1" and "the centre c2" in lines 2 and 3 has insufficient antecedent basis. The antecedents "a centre c1" and "a centre c2" were not previously recited.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “downwards” in line 3. This limitation can depend on installation orientation, instead of relative to the rotation of axis. Provide the orientation used to define “downwards,” or amend with a direction associated with the axis of the centrifugal separator and the drawings.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the liquid outlet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent "a liquid outlet" was not previously recited.
Any claims that depend therefore also are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson (US 20240198361 A1) in view of Andersson (US 20150068172 A1).
For claims 1 and 9, as interpreted, Jonsson discloses a centrifugal separator for cleaning gas containing contaminants (centrifugal separator 1; Fig. 1) said separator comprising
a stationary casing (stationary casing 2; Fig. 1) enclosing a separation space (pars [0081]-[0082]; Fig. 1) through which a gas flow is permitted;
a gas inlet (gas inlet 20) extending through the stationary casing and permitting supply of the gas to be cleaned (pars [0082]-[0083]; Fig. 1);
a rotating member (rotating member 7; Fig 1; par [0079]) comprising a plurality of separation members (Fig. 1; par [0023]) arranged in said separation space and being arranged to rotate around an axis of rotation (pars [0026], [0050]);
a gas outlet (gas outlet 28; Fig. 1) arranged in the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of cleaned gas and comprising an outlet opening through a wall of the stationary casing (par [0089]);
a drainage outlet (drainage outlet 29) arranged in the stationary casing and configured to permit discharge of liquid contaminants separated from the gas to be cleaned (Fig. 1; par [0084]);
a turbine casing (Fig. 1 portion surrounding turbine wheel 22) in which a turbine wheel (wheel 22) that is drivingly connected to the rotating member is arranged (Fig. 1); and
a nozzle (nozzle 24) arranged for directing a jet of pressurized liquid towards the turbine wheel, thereby rotating said turbine wheel (par [0084]),
wherein the turbine casing further comprises a turbine outlet (oil outlet 25) for drainage of the liquid used for rotating said turbine wheel.
Jonsson does not appear to disclose explicitly “wherein the turbine casing has a geometry such that the liquid used for rotating said turbine wheel is leaving said turbine outlet with a remaining kinetic energy that is higher than the energy obtained from gravity alone.” Jonsson does teach a nozzle 24 connected to an engine oil circuit of an internal combustion engine (see par [0079]) used to drive the wheel 22 (see pars [0084], [0086]), the oil nozzle 24 maintains a rotational speed (see par [0086]), and the oil outlet 25 is tangential (Fig. 1).
Andersson is analogous art (pars [0026]-[0037]) and discloses the invention provides more efficient conversion between pressure and kinetic energy (pars [0006]-[0009]). Andersson discloses a turbine and nozzle in a drive chamber (pars [0029]-[0031]). The turbine connected to a drive shaft and the nozzle are arranged to receive pressurized drive liquid from the combustion engine and to direct the pressurized drive liquid in a jet from the nozzle opening against the turbine for rotation of the centrifugal rotor (pars [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the nozzle and turbine casing of Johnsson according as taught in Anderson to provide more efficient conversion between pressure and kinetic energy therefore retain kinetic energy that is higher than the energy obtain from gravity.
For claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses liquid is sprayed from the nozzle with a pressure that is between 1-6 bars (par [0006]).
For claims 3 and 16, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses wherein the turbine casing comprises a sloped inner surface (Fig. 2) arranged so as to be hit by liquid used for rotating the turbine wheel. The phrase “arranged so as to be hit by liquid used for rotating the turbine wheel” is an intended result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses wherein the sloped inner surface has at least a portion that is at an axial position that overlaps with the axial extension of the turbine wheel (Fig. 2).
For claim 5 and 17, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses wherein the sloped inner surface extends axially outwards and downwards as seen in an axial plane (Fig. 2).
For claims 6 and 18-20, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses wherein the turbine casing comprises an inner ditch at the outer periphery of the turbine casing for directing the liquid used for rotating the turbine wheel towards the turbine outlet (channel located on the right side of reference character 14 below reference character 12 in Fig. 2).
For claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Anderson discloses wherein the inner ditch spirals axially downwards towards the turbine outlet (Fig. 2). The phrase “spirals axially downwards towards the turbine outlet” is an intended result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 11, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Jonsson disclose wherein the turbine outlet is arranged for draining the liquid in a radial direction (Fig. 1).
For claim 12, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Jonsson discloses wherein the turbine outlet is arranged for draining the liquid axially downwards (Fig. 1).
For claim 13, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Jonsson discloses wherein the nozzle and turbine outlet are arranged such that pressurized liquid enters the inner volume of the turbine casing via the nozzle in a first direction (Din) and leaves the inner volume of the turbine casing via the liquid outlet in a second direction (Dout), and wherein the angle (α) between the first (Din) and second (Dout) direction is at least 90 degrees, as seen in the radial plane (Fig. 1)
For claim 14, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Jonsson discloses wherein the plurality of separation members is a stack of separation discs (separation discs of the stack 9; par [0087]; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson (US 20240198361 A1) and Andersson (US 20150068172 A1) in further view of Andersson ‘227 (US 20140018227 A1).
For claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above but does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the center c1 of the inner area of the turbine casing is offset from the center c2 of the turbine wheel, as seen in a radial plane. Andersson ‘227 is analogous art and illustrates the center c1 of the inner area of the turbine casing is offset from the center c2 of the turbine wheel. The turbine casings of the prior art are considered equivalents in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the turbine casing taught in the combined teaching of the prior art references for the turbine casing of Andersson ‘227 since the selection of art recognized structural equivalents would have been available as an art recognized substitute at the filing date of the current invention with a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 20190224690 A1: Figs. 1, 6A; pars [0012], [0017], [0056].
US 2747793 A: Fig. 1.
US 20040107681 A1: Figs. 1-3.
US 20230015150 A1: Fig. 1.
US 20200298252 A1: Figs. 1-10B; pars [0040]-[0041].
DE 10350562 A1: Fig.
US 20070163444 A1 & US 20070249479 A1: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.
CN 113914970 A: Figs. 3-5; rotor 3, driving oil passage 4, base 2, driving wheel 5.
US 6019717 A: Figs. 1, 2.
US 20200061638 A1: impulse turbine; Figs. 8-22B.
US 20190321765 A1: Fig. 2; turbine 200; turbo turbine.
US 20210039115 A1: Figs. 10-11; impulse turbine 30, rotor 24, separation assembly 20, nozzle 70.
US 20240060422 A1: turbine; Fig. 3.
US 20130064651 A1: turbine casing; par [0019].
US 20210102522 A1: impulse turbine; par [0003], [0035]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 September 22, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
