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
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, 2, 4, and 9 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).
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 guiding means (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 guiding means (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. 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.
Regarding claim 2, King discloses the guiding means (element 34) is formed as a guide tube.
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 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).
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King/Weissenburger in further view of Kang (US Pub 2018/0279845 A1).
Regarding claim 3, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. 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 5, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guiding means 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 guiding means 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 guiding means 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 10, King does not teach the limitations of the claim. Kang teaches the guiding means 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 guiding means is varied at least in a part of the axial extension of the guiding means 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 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 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 112
Regarding the rejections under USC 112, the rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” A person skilled in the art would therefore not change the specified arrangement of the outlets in King, particularly not with the teachings from Weissenburger. The disclosure of King teaches away from that of Weissenburger. In addition to the above evidentiary sections from King, Weissenburger concerns air and not water as the carrier fluid for solids and in which air is already cleaned in the immersion tube. In King, part of the cleaning still takes place in the "immersion tube" of the third processing unit 34 and behind it in the fourth processing unit 36,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that while King discusses the placement of elements 16 as critical, this criticality is related to adjustable or variable shutoff valves controlling the flow of material (col. 6, lines 45+). The placement of the outlet ports in relation to the covering are not discussed involving the efficiency of the extraction process. Furthermore, Weissenburger’s teaching relates to the obviousness of axial placement of an outlet port and the immersion tube extending from the outlet port, which would have been an obvious modification for reducing the spatial volume the outlet and immersion tube occupy within the cyclone separator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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