DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parikh et al. WO 2020/163114 published 13 Aug. 2020 (hereafter Parikh)
Regarding claim 1, Parikh teaches a centrifugal separator (Fig 1) for separating a gas liquid mixture (¶3) into a gaseous phase (108) and a liquid phase (152), the centrifugal separator comprising:
a housing (110);
a first separation space (space comprising 111) delimited at least in part by the housing;
a first separation aid (111) for separating the liquid phase from the gaseous phase arranged inside the first separation space (¶30-31);
a drive arrangement (electric motor, ¶29) configured for rotating the first separation aid (¶29);
an inlet (112 and/or 107) for the gas liquid mixture, mixture (¶35);
a gas outlet (114) for the separated gaseous phase (¶35, ¶37);
a liquid outlet for the separated liquid phase (¶36);
a second separation space (space comprising 113) delimited at least in part by the housing; and
a second separation aid (113) for separating the liquid phase from the gaseous phase arranged inside the second separation space (¶30-31);
wherein the drive arrangement is configured for rotating the second separation aid (¶29);
wherein a first passage (upper channels 160 in Fig 2) connects the inlet with the first separation space, and
wherein a second passage (lower channels 160 in Fig 2) connects the inlet with the second separation space, and
wherein the first and second separation aids are arranged along a common axis (¶35).
Regarding claim 2, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the inlet (107) is arranged between the first and second separation spaces.
Regarding claim 3, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein radially outer portions of the first and second separation spaces are arranged in fluid communication with the gas outlet (¶35).
Regarding claim 4, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein radially outer portions of the first and second separation spaces are arranged in fluid communication with the liquid outlet (¶35).
Regarding claim 7, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the inlet (112) is arranged to provide a flow direction of the gas liquid mixture entering the centrifugal separator perpendicularly to the common axis (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the gas outlet (114) is arranged to provide a flow direction of the gaseous phase leaving the centrifugal separator perpendicularly to the common axis (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the drive arrangement comprises at least a first drive unit configured to rotate the first separation aid (¶29).
Regarding claim 10, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator the liquid outlet is arranged at a lower portion of the centrifugal separator (as shown in Fig 1; ¶36).
Regarding claim 12, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the first passage (upper channels 160 in Fig 2) leads to a radially central portion (portion of 111 between 118 and 116) of the first separation space and the second passage (lower channels 160 in Fig 2) leads to a radially central portion (portion of 113 between 128 and 126) of the second separation space.
Regarding claim 13, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the centrifugal separator is configured for concurrent separation of the gas liquid mixture into the gaseous phase and the liquid phase (¶35-36).
Regarding claim 14, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Parikh further teaches wherein the housing is arranged stationary in relation to the first and second separation aids (¶34-35).
Regarding claim 15, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Parikh further teaches wherein radially outer portions of the first and second separation spaces are arranged in fluid communication with the gas outlet (¶35).
Regarding claim 16, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Parikh further teaches wherein radially outer portions of the first and second separation spaces are arranged in fluid communication with the liquid outlet (¶35).
Regarding claim 17, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Parikh further teaches wherein radially outer portions of the first and second separation spaces are arranged in fluid communication with the liquid outlet (¶35).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonne et al. US 2018/0104633 (hereafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 5, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Parikh does not teach wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally.
Bonne teaches a centrifugal separator (Figs 4 and 7) wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally (Fig 7) or vertically (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator (Fig 1) of Parikh by incorporating the horizontally extending common axis (Fig 7) as a matter of art recognized equivalents (MPEP 2114.06) and in order to fit in an engine bay when space constraints require a horizontal arrangement.
Regarding claim 6, Parikh in view of Bonne teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Parikh further teaches wherein the drive arrangement comprises a rotor shaft (140) extending along the common axis through the first and second separation spaces, and wherein the first and second separation aids are connected to the rotor shaft (as shown in Fig 1; ¶29).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eliasson US 2017/0036220 (hereafter Eliasson).
Regarding claim 11, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Parikh does not teaches wherein each of the first and second separation aids comprises a stack of separation discs.
Eliasson teaches a crankcase centrifugal separator (Fig 4, ¶1) wherein the separation aid (6) comprises a stack of separation discs (8) in order to separate liquid droplets from a gas and have a suitably compact design (¶9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first (111) and second (112) separation aids of Parikh by substituting the stack of separation discs (6) for each separation aid in order to separate liquid droplets from a gas and have a suitably compact design (¶9-11).
The modification would have resulted in wherein each of the first and second separation aids comprises a stack of separation discs.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bonne et al. US 2018/0104633 (hereafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 18, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Parikh does not teach wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally.
Bonne teaches a centrifugal separator (Figs 4 and 7) wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally (Fig 7) or vertically (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator (Fig 1) of Parikh by incorporating the horizontally extending common axis (Fig 7) as a matter of art recognized equivalents (MPEP 2114.06) and in order to fit in an engine bay when space constraints require a horizontal arrangement.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bonne et al. US 2018/0104633 (hereafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 19, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Parikh does not teach wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally.
Bonne teaches a centrifugal separator (Figs 4 and 7) wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally (Fig 7) or vertically (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator (Fig 1) of Parikh by incorporating the horizontally extending common axis (Fig 7) as a matter of art recognized equivalents (MPEP 2114.06) and in order to fit in an engine bay when space constraints require a horizontal arrangement.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bonne et al. US 2018/0104633 (hereafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 20, Parikh teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Parikh does not teach wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally.
Bonne teaches a centrifugal separator (Figs 4 and 7) wherein in a use position of the centrifugal separator, the common axis extends substantially horizontally (Fig 7) or vertically (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator (Fig 1) of Parikh by incorporating the horizontally extending common axis (Fig 7) as a matter of art recognized equivalents (MPEP 2114.06) and in order to fit in an engine bay when space constraints require a horizontal arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights