DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 2-3 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “variable pressure flow path is configured to gradually increase the pressure of the air from the inlet toward the outlet thereof.” The recites claim limitation of a gradually increasing the pressure of the air is indefinite because there is no definition of “gradually”. Examiner will interpreted claim language as variable pressure flow path is configured to increase pressure from the inlet toward the outlet.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected as indefinite similarly for the lack of definition of gradually. The same interpretation of gradually will be used.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “wherein the expansion guide part is provided to have a cross-sectional area that gradually increases from one end, which is adjacent to the discharge port, toward the other end in a longitudinal direction of the housing member” The expansion guide part can not be adjacent to the discharge port while being on opposite side of the housing.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kerton (WO 2023096938 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator (Fig 1A 100) comprising: a housing member having an inlet port (Fig 1a 116) through which air is introduced, and a discharge port through which the air is discharged (Fig 1a 104); a vortex generation member provided in the housing member and configured to generate a vortex in the air introduced into the housing member so that droplets contained in the air come into contact with an inner surf ace of the housing member (Fig 1a 110); and a variable pressure flow path provided in the housing member and configured to guide the air, from which the droplets are separated, to the discharge port and change pressure of the air from an inlet toward an outlet thereof [0005].
PNG
media_image1.png
696
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to the claim limitation “configure to generate a vortex in the air introduced into the housing member so that droplets contained in the air come into contact with an inner surf ace of the housing member” and “configured to guide the air, from which the droplets are separated, to the discharge port and change pressure of the air from an inlet toward an outlet thereof”, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding claim 2, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 1, wherein the variable pressure flow path is configured to gradually increase the pressure of the air from the inlet toward the outlet thereof (end of ¶ [0039] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 2, wherein the variable pressure flow path is provided to have a cross-sectional area that gradually increases from the inlet toward the outlet thereof (end of ¶ [0039] and [0040].
Regarding claim 4, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 1, wherein the vortex generation member is provided to be spaced apart from an inner peripheral surface of the housing member, and the variable pressure flow path is defined along the inside of the vortex generation member (Fig 17 700 702 710 ¶[0138]).
Regarding claim 5, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 4, wherein one end of the vortex generation member (Fig 17 710) is connected to the housing member (Fig 17 702) and communicates with the discharge port (Fig 17 714), and the other end of the vortex generation member is disposed as a free end spaced apart from the inner surface of the housing member (Fig 17 722).
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 5, wherein a main wall portion of the vortex generation member is provided to be inclined (Fig 1a 108) at a first reference angle preset with respect to a first reference line that passes through a center of the vortex generation member in a longitudinal direction of the housing member(Fig 1a 112).
Regarding claim 8, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 5, comprising: an expansion guide part provided at the other end of the vortex generation member and having a larger cross-sectional area than the inlet of the variable pressure flow path (Fig 1a dotted line F through E).
Regarding claim 9, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 8, wherein the expansion guide part is provided to have a cross-sectional area that gradually increases from one end, which is adjacent to the discharge port, toward the other end in a longitudinal direction of the housing member (Fig 1a dotted line F through E).
Regarding claim 10, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 9, wherein a main wall portion of the expansion guide part is provided to be inclined at a second reference angle (Fig 1a dotted line F through E) preset with respect to a first reference line that passes through a center of the vortex generation member in a longitudinal direction of the housing member (Fig 1a 112).
Regarding claim 12, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 1, wherein the discharge port is provided at one end of the housing member based on a longitudinal direction of the housing member (Fig 1a 104), and the inlet port is provided in a main wall portion of the housing member (Fig 1a 116).
Regarding claim 13, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 12, wherein a center of the inlet port is defined to be inclined at a third reference angle preset with respect to a second reference line that passes through a center of the discharge port in the longitudinal direction of the housing member (Fig 1B 120 118 ¶[0050]).
PNG
media_image3.png
422
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 13, wherein the third reference angle is defined to be 60 to 120 degrees (Fig 1B 120 118 ¶[0050]).
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.
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) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerton (WO 2023096938 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 6, but Kerton fails to explicitly teach wherein the first reference angle is defined to be larger than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 30 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed inventions would optimize the angles of the walls to create a vortex sufficiently strong enough to separate gas and liquid (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A.)
Regarding claim 11, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 10, but Kerton fails to explicitly teach wherein the second reference angle is defined to be larger than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 60 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed inventions would optimize the angles of the walls to create a vortex sufficiently strong enough to separate gas and liquid (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A.)
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cremaschi (US 20210093996 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 1, but Kerton fails to teach a droplet capturing part provided in the housing member and configured to capture the droplets separated from the air.
However, Cremaschi teaches a droplet capturing part provided in the housing member and configured to capture the droplets separated from the air (Fig 1 108). Cremaschi and Kerton are analogues to the claim invention because both are in the same field of gas-liquid separators. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would combine separation chamber of Cremaschi with liquid-gas separator of Kerton in order stop the buildup of fluid
PNG
media_image4.png
582
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the vortex generator.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 15, wherein the droplet capturing part is provided at an end of the housing member based on a longitudinal direction of the housing member and communicates with the inside of the housing member (Cremaschi Fig 1 108 100).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 16, wherein the housing member is provided to have a first cross-sectional area, and the droplet capturing part is provided to have a second cross-sectional area larger than the first cross-sectional area by at least 10% or more (Cremaschi Fig 1 108 is much larger than 106 ¶[0031]) Furthermore changing in size/ proportion in obvious see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 15, a droplet guide part protruding from the droplet capturing part while facing the inlet of the variable pressure flow path (Cremaschi Fig 1 134 106).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 18, wherein the droplet guide part is provided to have a larger diameter than the inlet of the variable pressure flow path (Cremaschi Fig 1 108 106).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kerton teaches a gas-liquid separator of claim 19, wherein the droplet capturing part is provided to have a first length in a longitudinal direction of the housing member, and the droplet guide part is provided to have a second length equal to or longer than the first length (Cremaschi Fig 1 108 and ¶[0031]) Furthermore changing in size/ proportion in obvious see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights