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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose, as recited in MPEP §609: “In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56."
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann US 821,819 (hereafter Neumann).
Regarding claims 1-2, Neumann teaches a particle separator (middle portion of Fig 3, as shown below) for an intake (intake to h), comprising
a C-shaped intake (intake portion located between first vessel g and chamber h in Fig 3), which is divided into an inlet segment (segment near second flap d in Fig 3, labeled below), a bending segment (segment near third flap d in Fig 3, labeled below), and an outlet segment (segment near fourth flap d in Fig 3, labeled below), wherein a direction of an airflow at the inlet segment is reversely bent by 180° through the bending segment, then the airflow enters the outlet segment (as shown in Fig 3), and the outlet segment is externally connected (via vessels g and h); and
[AltContent: textbox (Bending segment)][AltContent: textbox (outlet segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Inlet segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Outer wall surface)]a particle separation device (device flap d at the upper most region shown in Fig 3; labeled below), arranged at the bending segment (3) and comprising a separation flow path (c) outward in an air inlet direction, wherein the airflow is controlled to be separated by controlling an inlet (inlet to c) of the separation flow path, which makes most particles in the airflow discharged through the separation flow path along with the airflow;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotating bearing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner wall surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotating wall surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the particle separation device comprises an inner wall surface (labeled above) of the bending segment, an outer wall surface (labeled above) of the bending segment, and a rotating wall surface (d); the rotating wall surface is a part of outer wall surface of the bending segment (as shown in Fig 3); the separation flow path is fixedly connected to the outer wall surface of the bending segment (as shown in Fig 3) and located on an outer side of the rotating wall surface; a rotating bearing (bearing at the hinge side of d as labeled above) is arranged on an inner side (side closer to outlet) of the separation flow path and the outer wall surface of the bending segment, and located on the outlet segment side; a free end (end of flap d opposite bearing and facing the incoming air flow in Fig 3) of the rotating wall surface is towards an air inlet direction; the rotating wall surface rotates with the rotating bearing as a rotating shaft to control inlet area of the separation flow path (page 1 lines 50-67); and the airflow is segmented (one segment flows through c, the other in b) by the rotating wall surface, making most particles in the airflow flow into the separation flow path (where the structure of the Neumann separator would be fully capable of making most particles in the airflow flow into the separation flow path in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Garrone US3710561 (hereafter Garrone).
Regarding claim 3, Neumann teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Neumann does not teach wherein cross-sectional area of the rotating wall surface is 0.9-1.3 times area of an air outlet of the outlet segment.
Garrone teaches a particle separator (Fig 2) comprising a C-shaped intake (Fig 2) comprising an inlet segment (2), a bending segment (1), and an outlet segment (5) where the airflow is bent 180° and further comprises a rotating wall surface (4) with a rotating bearing (pin of col 3 lines 1-9). Garrone further teaches wherein cross-sectional area of the rotating wall surface is not less than a third times area of an air outlet of the outlet segment (col 3 lines 10-23). Garrone teaches where the blade area affects the size of the exhaust opening/angle of rotation which affects the particle separation (col 3 lines 10-23, lines 50-54).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that where prior art and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose the overlapping portions of the ranges. Thus, 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 cross-sectional area of the rotating wall surface (d) of Neumann, such as to be 0.9-1.3 times area of an air outlet of the outlet segment, as a matter of obvious overlapping ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I) and in order to affect the size of the exhaust opening/angle of rotation which affects the particle separation (Garrone col 3 lines 10-23, lines 50-54).
Regarding claim 4, Neumann teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Neumann further teaches wherein the separation flow path is externally connected to a sand discharging device (g and/or A).
Regarding claim 5, Neumann teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Neumann further teaches wherein the sand discharging device is a blower (A).
Prior Art
Applicant is made aware of pertinent prior art Donsi EP0623375 and Etemad WO2011031192 which teach a particle separator comprising a C-shaped intake and a particle separation device.
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