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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 17/242,500 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for reflowing” in claims 4, 7, 13 and 15 (Paragraph 0033).
“means for determining” in claims 5-7 and 14-15 (Paragraph 0033).
“means for collecting” in claims 10 and 17 (Paragraph 0031).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “proximal” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “proximal” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are rejected as they are dependent upon claims 1 and 8.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heller (DE 102006037805). English translations of Heller (DE 102006037805) have been included herein.
Regarding claim 1, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches a system for extracting oxygen from a fluid (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2), comprising:
one or more tubes defining a fluid flow path (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-8);
one or more magnets (Fig. 2 #160) positioned proximal the one or more tubes (Fig. 2 #160 positioned proximal #120) to establish a magnetic field gradient in the fluid flow path (Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10);
a flow divider (Fig. 2 #150) positioned inside a portion of the one or more tubes proximal a downstream end of the one or more tubes (Fig. 2 #150 positioned inside #120, proximal downstream #120),
wherein a magnetic field gradient established inside the one or more tubes by the one or more magnets has a magnitude that is greater on a first side of the fluid flow path as compared to a second side of the fluid flow path (Fig. 2 magnitude is greater on first side #122 as compared to second side #124, Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10), and
wherein the flow divider fluidically isolates the first side from the second side (Fig. 2 #150 fluidically isolates first side #122 from second side #124).
Regarding claim 2, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid is at least one of: a liquid, and a gas (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
at least one of the one or more tubes has a circular cross-section (Paragraph 0053 lines 3-5); and
the magnetic field gradient is established radially across the fluid flow path (Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 5, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising means for determining an oxygen content of the fluid (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7) in at least one of: the first side, and the second side (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7, “analytical oxygen determination” takes place after flow divider isolates portion of gas mixture flowing through #130 and portion flowing through #140 to determine “degree of separation”).
Regarding claim 6, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the means for determining the oxygen content is positioned downstream of the flow divider (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7, “analytical oxygen determination” takes place after flow divider isolates portion of gas mixture flowing through #130 and portion flowing through #140 to determine “degree of separation”).
Regarding claim 8, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches a system for extracting oxygen from a fluid (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2), comprising:
a separator stage (Paragraph 0046 lines 2-6) comprising:
a separator tube (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-8) having an interior portion (Fig. 2 interior portion of #120) defining a fluid flow path from a first end of the separator tube (Fig. 2 end of #120 by #110) to a second end of the separator tube (Fig. 2 end of #120 away from #110); and
at least one magnet (Fig. 2 #160) positioned proximal the separator tube between the first end and the second end (Fig. 2 #160 positioned proximal #120, #160 positioned between end of #120 by #110 and end of #120 away from #110) to establish a magnetic field gradient in the interior portion (Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10),
wherein a magnitude of the magnetic field gradient is greater on a first lateral side of the interior portion as compared to a second lateral side of the interior portion (Fig. 2 magnitude is greater on first side #122 as compared to second side #124, Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10); and
a flow director stage (Paragraph 0046 lines 8-9) comprising:
a flow divider (Fig. 2 #150) positioned inside a portion of the separator tube proximal the second end (Fig. 2 #150 positioned inside a portion of #120 proximal to end of #120 away from #110) to divide the fluid flow path into a first flow path and a second flow path (Fig. 2 #150 divides fluid flow path through #120 into path through #130 and path through #140);
a first exit tube (Fig. 2 #130) in flow communication with the second end (Fig. 2 #130 in flow communication with end of #120 away from #110) for carrying the first flow path downstream of the separator tube (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-15); and
a second exit tube (Fig. 2 #140) in flow communication with the second end (Fig. 2 #140 in flow communication with end of #120 away from #110) for carrying the second flow path downstream of the separator tube (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 9, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 8, wherein, in the presence of a fluid flow of the fluid having oxygen, the first flow path (Fig. 2 path through #130) includes an oxygen enriched fluid flow (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 10, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 9 further comprising means for collecting the oxygen enriched fluid flow (Fig. 1B #578, Paragraph 0077 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 11, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the fluid is at least one of: a liquid, and a gas (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 8, wherein:
the separator tube has a circular cross-section (Paragraph 0053 lines 3-5); and
the magnetic field gradient is established radially across the interior portion of the separator tube (Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 14, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the system of claim 8 further comprising means for determining an oxygen content of the fluid (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7) in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7, “analytical oxygen determination” takes place after flow divider separates portion of gas mixture flowing through #130 and portion flowing through #140 to determine “degree of separation”).
Regarding claim 16, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches an oxygen separation method (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2), comprising:
establishing a magnetic field gradient in a tube (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-8, Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10) having a first end (Fig. 2 end of #120 by #110) in flow communication with a source of a fluid containing oxygen (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-5); and
flowing the fluid through the tube (Paragraph 0047 lines 8-10),
wherein the magnetic field gradient causes oxygen to be enriched in the fluid on a first interior side of the tube as compared to a second interior side of the tube (Fig. 2 see first interior side #122 and second interior side #124, Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10, Paragraph 0050 lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the method of claim 16 further comprising directing, at a second end of the tube opposite the first end (Fig. 2 end of #120 away from #110), at least a portion of the fluid flowing in the first interior side to a means for collecting an oxygen enriched fluid (Paragraph 0047 lines 5-15, Paragraph 0077 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 18, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the fluid is at least one of: a liquid, and a gas (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the method of claim 16, wherein:
the tube has a circular cross section (Paragraph 0053 lines 3-5); and
establishing the magnetic field gradient comprises establishing the magnetic field gradient radially across an interior portion of the tube (Paragraph 0049 lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 20, Heller (DE 102006037805) teaches the method of claim 16 further comprising determining an oxygen content of the fluid (Paragraph 0122 lines 3-7).
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.
Claims 4, 7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (DE 102006037805) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518).
Regarding claim 4, Heller (DE 102006037805) lacks teaching the system of claim 1 further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through the one or more tubes.
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) teaches a system for separating fluids (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-14), further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid (Fig. 13A #51) downstream of the flow divider (Fig. 13A #51 reflows a portion of fluid downstream #6) through the one or more tubes (Fig. 13A #15 reflows a portion of fluid through #2a).
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) explains that a circulation passage may be opened and closed, making it possible to cause fluid from fluid outlet to flow back to the fluid inlet and to pass again through separation-membrane-equipped tubes (Paragraph 0095 lines 1-13), and further explains that a sensor may be arranged to measure the concentration of constituents present within the fluid and determine if the circulation passage should be used or not (Paragraph 0096 lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller (DE 102006037805) to include means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through the one or more tubes as taught by Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) in order to reflow a portion of the fluid through the tube again to undergo further separation, especially in cases where the amount of oxygen extracted from the fluid was not sufficient.
Regarding claim 7, Heller (DE 102006037805) lacks teaching the system of claim 5 further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through the one or more tubes, wherein the means for determining the oxygen content is further positioned in or on the means for reflowing and at least partially in contact with the at least one of: the first side, and the second side.
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) teaches a system for separating fluids (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-14), further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider (Fig. 13A #51 reflows a portion of fluid downstream #6) through the one or more tubes (Fig. 13A #15 reflows a portion of fluid through #2a), wherein the means for determining the component content (Fig. 13A #57) is further positioned in or on the means for reflowing (Fig. 13A #57 positioned on #51) and at least partially in contact with the at least one of: the first side, and the second side (Fig. 13A #57 at least partially in contact with first side of flow after divider #6).
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) explains that a circulation passage may be opened and closed, making it possible to cause fluid from fluid outlet to flow back to the fluid inlet and to pass again through separation-membrane-equipped tubes (Paragraph 0095 lines 1-13), and further explains that a sensor may be arranged to measure the concentration of constituents present within the fluid and determine if the circulation passage should be used or not (Paragraph 0096 lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller (DE 102006037805) to include means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through the one or more tubes, wherein the means for determining the oxygen content is further positioned in or on the means for reflowing and at least partially in contact with the at least one of: the first side, and the second side as taught by Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) in order to reflow a portion of the fluid through the tube again to undergo further separation, especially in cases where the amount of oxygen extracted from the fluid was not sufficient.
Regarding claim 13, Heller (DE 102006037805) lacks teaching the system of claim 8 further comprising means for reflowing the fluid in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube through the separator tube.
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) teaches a system for separating fluids (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-14), further comprising means for reflowing the fluid in the second flow path (Fig. 13A #51 reflowing fluid in second flow path #12) downstream of the separator tube (Fig. 13A #51 reflows a portion of fluid downstream #2a) through the separator tube (Fig. 13A #15 reflows a fluid downstream #2a through #2a).
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) explains that a circulation passage may be opened and closed, making it possible to cause fluid from fluid outlet to flow back to the fluid inlet and to pass again through separation-membrane-equipped tubes (Paragraph 0095 lines 1-13), and further explains that a sensor may be arranged to measure the concentration of constituents present within the fluid and determine if the circulation passage should be used or not (Paragraph 0096 lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller (DE 102006037805) to include means for reflowing the fluid in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube through the separator tube as taught by Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) in order to reflow a portion of the fluid through the tube again to undergo further separation, especially in cases where the amount of oxygen extracted from the fluid was not sufficient.
Regarding claim 15, Heller (DE 102006037805) lacks teaching the system of claim 14, wherein the means for determining the oxygen content is positioned in or on the means for reflowing the fluid and at least partially in contact with the fluid in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube.
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) teaches a system for separating fluids (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-14), wherein the means for determining the component content (Fig. 13A #57) is further positioned in or on the means for reflowing the fluid (Fig. 13A #57 positioned on #51) and at least partially in contact with the fluid in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube (Fig. 13A #57 at least partially in contact with fluid in #12 downstream of #2a).
Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) explains that a circulation passage may be opened and closed, making it possible to cause fluid from fluid outlet to flow back to the fluid inlet and to pass again through separation-membrane-equipped tubes (Paragraph 0095 lines 1-13), and further explains that a sensor may be arranged to measure the concentration of constituents present within the fluid and determine if the circulation passage should be used or not (Paragraph 0096 lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller (DE 102006037805) to include wherein the means for determining the oxygen content is positioned in or on the means for reflowing the fluid and at least partially in contact with the fluid in the second flow path downstream of the separator tube as taught by Ito et al. (US 2013/0228518) in order to reflow the fluid through the tube again to undergo further separation, especially in cases where the amount of oxygen extracted from the fluid was not sufficient.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 12, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,235. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 16 and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 5-6, 12, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,235.
Application 18/979,737
U.S. Patent No. 12,168,235
1. A system for extracting oxygen from a fluid, comprising:
one or more tubes defining a fluid flow path;
one or more magnets positioned proximal the one or more tubes to establish a magnetic field gradient in the fluid flow path;
a flow divider positioned inside a portion of the one or more tubes proximal a downstream end of the one or more tubes,
wherein a magnetic field gradient established inside the one or more tubes by the one or more magnets has a magnitude that is greater on a first side of the fluid flow path as compared to a second side of the fluid flow path, and
wherein the flow divider fluidically isolates the first side from the second side.
1. “A system for extracting oxygen from a fluid, comprising:
four separator tubes arranged adjacent to one another to thereby form a central space between the four separator tubes, the four separator tubes defining four separate fluid flow paths;
a flow divider positioned inside a longitudinal portion of each separator tube of the four separator tubes proximate to a downstream end of each separator tube of the four separator tubes, wherein the flow divider… to thereby fluidically isolate a first side of the fluid flow path of each separator tube of the four separator tubes from a second side of the fluid flow path of each separator tube of the four separator tubes downstream of the upstream end of the flow divider; and
at least one magnet positioned around, and opposite the central space of, the four separator tubes proximate to the first side of the fluid flow path of each separator tube of the four separator tubes… wherein for each separator tube of the four separator tubes, a magnetic field gradient of the magnetic field has a magnitude that is greater on the first side of the fluid flow path as compared to the second side of the fluid flow path to concentrate oxygen as molecular O.sub.2 on the first side of the fluid flow path.”
4. The system of claim 1 further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through the one or more tubes.
6. “The system of claim 1 further comprising means for reflowing at least a portion of the fluid downstream of the flow divider through each separator tube of four separator tubes.”
5. The system of claim 1 further comprising means for determining an oxygen content of the fluid in at least one of: the first side, and the second side.
5. “The system of claim 1 further comprising means for determining an oxygen content of the fluid in at least one of: the first side, and the second side, of the fluid flow path.”
8. A system for extracting oxygen from a fluid, comprising:
a separator stage comprising:
a separator tube having an interior portion defining a fluid flow path from a first end of the separator tube to a second end of the separator tube; and
at least one magnet positioned proximal the separator tube between the first end and the second end to establish a magnetic field gradient in the interior portion,
wherein a magnitude of the magnetic field gradient is greater on a first lateral side of the interior portion as compared to a second lateral side of the interior portion; and
a flow director stage comprising:
a flow divider positioned inside a portion of the separator tube proximal the second end to divide the fluid flow path into a first flow path and a second flow path;
a first exit tube in flow communication with the second end for carrying the first flow path downstream of the separator tube; and
a second exit tube in flow communication with the second end for carrying the second flow path downstream of the separator tube.
12. “A system for extracting oxygen from a fluid, comprising:
a separator stage comprising:
a separator tube having an interior portion defining a fluid flow path from a first end of the separator tube to a second end of the separator tube; and
at least one magnet positioned proximate to the separator tube between the first end and the second end to establish a magnetic field in the interior portion,
wherein: a magnitude of a magnetic field gradient of the magnetic field is greater on a first lateral side of the interior portion as compared to a second lateral side of the interior portion… a flow director stage comprising:
a flow divider positioned inside a portion of the separator tube downstream of the at least one magnet and proximate to the second end, wherein the flow divider includes an upstream end and a downstream end, and wherein the flow divider extends from the upstream end to the downstream end and radially spans the separator tube from the first lateral side to the second lateral side to divide the fluid flow path into:
a first flow path for an O.sub.2 enriched fluid flow from the first lateral side; and
a second flow path for an O.sub.2 depleted fluid flow from the second lateral side;
a first exit tube in flow communication with the second end for carrying the first flow path downstream of the separator tube; and
a second exit tube in flow communication with the second end for carrying the second flow path downstream of the separator tube.”
9. The system of claim 8, wherein, in the presence of a fluid flow of the fluid having oxygen, the first flow path includes an oxygen enriched fluid flow.
12. “a first flow path for an O.sub.2 enriched fluid flow from the first lateral side”
16. An oxygen separation method, comprising:
establishing a magnetic field gradient in a tube having a first end in flow communication with a source of a fluid containing oxygen; and
flowing the fluid through the tube,
wherein the magnetic field gradient causes oxygen to be enriched in the fluid on a first interior side of the tube as compared to a second interior side of the tube.
18. An oxygen separation method, comprising:
establishing, by at least one magnet, a magnetic field in each separator tube… flowing the fluid through each separator tube of the four separator tubes;
concentrating, by the magnetic field gradient and during the flowing, molecular O.sub.2 in the fluid proximate to the first side of the fluid flow path as compared to the second side of the fluid flow path”
20. The method of claim 16 further comprising determining an oxygen content of the fluid.
20. “The method of claim 18 further comprising determining an oxygen content of the fluid.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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 at (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 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653