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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 4-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is dependent from cancelled claim 2. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be examined as if it is dependent from claim 1.
Claims 5 and 7 recites the limitation "guiding means" in line 4-5 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (USP 10,596,580 B2) in view of Weissenburger (WO 2017/191242 A1) and Kang (US Pub 2018/0279845 A1).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a cyclone separator (see Fig. 1) for separating solids and/or liquids from a process stream, comprising: a process space (interior of element 22) which is round in cross-section and is formed by at least one peripheral wall (see Figs. 1 and 2) and a covering (see Fig. 1; top of element 12): an inlet port (element 14) penetrating a circumferential wall (element 12) for introducing the process stream into the process space (see Fig. 2) in the circumferential direction of the process space (the stream entering through element 14); an outlet port (element 16) penetrating the covering (see Fig. 1; elements 16 coming out top portion of element 12) for leading the process stream out of the process space; an immersion tube (elements 26 and 28) extending from the outlet port in the process space; and a guide tube (see Figs. 2 and 5; element 34 and inner screw structure) extending in the center of the process space in the axial direction (see Fig. 2; element 34 inside and centered within element 22) and engaging in the immersion tube (elements 34 and inner screw structure surround immersion tube 26); wherein the guide tube (see Fig. 5; inner screw structure) is formed variable in cross-section over at least part of its axial extension, but King does not disclose the outlet port penetrating the covering in the axial direction and the immersion tube extending from the outlet port in the axial direction and teaches the guide tube is formed to be elastic and an inner space of the guide tube is formed variable in volume in order to change the cross- section of the guide tube.
Weissenburger teaches the outlet port penetrating the covering in the axial direction and the immersion tube extending from the outlet port in the axial direction (see Figs. 1, 6a, 6b, and 6c where elements 19 and 2 are concentric) as for the purpose of reducing the spatial volume the outlet and immersion tube occupy within the cyclone separator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Weissenburger, for the purpose of reducing the spatial volume the outlet and immersion tube occupy within the cyclone separator.
Kang teaches the guide tube is formed to be elastic (paragraph 0244; rubber) and an inner space of the guide tube is formed variable in volume in order to change the cross- section of the guide tube (see Figs. 10 and 11; element 70) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 4, King discloses a tube wall of the guide tube is formed in a spiral shape (see Fig. 5; inner screw structure).
Regarding claim 5, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guide tube is formed elastic and the cyclone separator comprises means for compressing and/or stretching the guiding means in order to change the cross-section of the guiding means (see Figs. 10 and 11; element 70) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 6, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guide tube has at least two sections along its axial extension, and wherein at least two sections have different moduli of elasticity from one another (see Figs. 10 and 11; elements 35 and 70) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
‘Regarding claim 7, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guide tube comprises a plurality of sections along its axial extension and at least two sections are formed to be displaceable relative to one another in the axial direction in order to change the cross-section of the guiding means (see Figs. 10 and 11; elements 35 and 70) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 9, King discloses the immersion tube is formed variable in its cross-section or comprises an orifice with a variable clear cross-section (where element 66 within element 34 varies the cross-section of the tube and orifice).
Regarding claim 10, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guide tube is made of a plastic, in particular of an elastomer or a thermoplastic (paragraph 0244) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 11, King discloses the circumferential wall (2) is formed conical over at least part of its axial extension (see Fig. 1; element 12).
Regarding claim 13, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches a solids outlet (element 7) arranged at one end of the process space for discharging solids from the process space for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 14, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches a method for operating the cyclone separator of claim 1, wherein the cross-section of the guide tube is varied at least in a part of the axial extension of the guide tube as a function of a mass flow, a flow velocity, a solids load or a liquid load of the process stream (paragraphs 0239, 0240, and 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Regarding claim 15, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches at least one sensor for detecting a mass flow, a flow velocity, a solids load or a liquid load of the process stream (paragraphs 0239, 0240, and 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified) for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material (paragraph 0248; air velocity and pressure are modified). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of modifying the flow pattern of material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King/Weissenburger/Kang in further view of Kalen et al (USP 5,207,805).
Regarding claim 12, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kalen teaches the inlet port has a slot-shaped extension in the axial direction of the process space (element 12) for the purpose of creating an accelerating flow once the gas enters the inlet (col. 4, lines 34-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify King, as taught by Kalen, for the purpose of creating an accelerating flow once the gas enters the inlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Kang discloses element 70, which is a contractible throat body forming part of a diffuser duct wall upstream of the cyclone separator. That element responds passively to pressure changes by being drawn inward. Amended claim 1 by contrast requires a hollow, elastic guide tube positioned centrally inside the cyclone process space, engaging in the immersion tube, with a cross section that is changed by actively varying the volume of its inner space. Kang does not disclose or suggest any such structure,” the Examiner disagrees. Amended claim 1,” the guide tube is formed to be elastic and an inner space of the guide tube is formed variable in volume in order to change the cross-section of the guide tube”. The Examiner asserts that King discloses a variable cross-section (see Fig. 5; inner screw structure) and that Kang teaches the tube being elastic (paragraph 0244) and the volume being variable in order to change the cross-section (see Figs. 10 and 11; element 70). Applicant’s argument states that the cross section that is changed by actively varying the volume of its inner space; however, Kang teaches an elastic tube that changes (an active action of pressure change) to change the cross-section where the volume of the tube itself is variable. The claim limitation does not claim actively varying the volume of its inner space, and, as such, King in view of Kang discloses the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights