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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to Claims 2-20, “A crankcase gas separator according to…” have been amended to recite as “The crankcase gas separator according to…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey (US2003/0034016 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator comprising
a separator housing delimiting at least part of a separation space (Fig. 2, Part 20),
a rotor arranged in the separation space, wherein the rotor comprises a separation aid in the form of a stack of separation discs (Fig. 2, Part 24, Part 21a, Paragraph 18),
a gas outlet passage from the separation space (Fig. 2, Part 21b, Paragraph 19), and
a gas pressure regulating valve arranged in fluid communication with the gas outlet passage (Fig. 2, Part 31, Paragraphs 21-26), wherein
the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a valve seat and a membrane configured to seal against the valve seat and provides a flow direction for gas from the gas outlet passage through the gas pressure regulating valve (Fig. 2, a valve seat is located closed to Part 33, Part 32 as a membrane, Paragraphs 21-26 would reflect the limitations), and wherein
in relation to the flow direction, the membrane is arranged downstream of the valve seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 2, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein seen perpendicularly to a plane including the valve seat (Fig. 2), a gas throughflow area within the valve seat, and an area of the membrane outside the valve seat has a ratio within a range of 1 : 1.25 to 1 : 5 (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 3, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas outlet passage from the separation space is connected to an inlet passage of the gas pressure regulating valve, and wherein the inlet passage leads to the valve seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 4, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the inlet passage of the gas pressure regulating valve extends substantially perpendicularly to a plane including the valve seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 5, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein a valve closing motion of the membrane is in a direction opposite to a direction of gas flowing into the gas pressure regulating valve (Paragraphs 21-26).
Regarding to Claim 6, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a gas outlet conduit downstream of the membrane (Fig. 2, Part 34), and wherein the gas outlet conduit extends substantially in parallel with the membrane (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 9, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein a plane including the valve seat and a plane of an abutment area of the membrane configured to abut against the valve seat are arranged at an angle to each other (Paragraphs 21-26, when Part 32 is in the second position. The examiner considered the angle degree can be zero).
Regarding to Claim 10, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve further comprises a biasing member arranged to bias the membrane in a direction away from the valve seat (Fig. 2, Part 33, Paragraphs 21-26).
Regarding to Claim 11, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas outlet passage from the separation space is connected to an inlet passage of the gas pressure regulating valve, and wherein the inlet passage leads to the valve seat (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 12, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein a valve closing motion of the membrane is in a direction opposite to a direction of gas flowing into the gas pressure regulating valve (Paragraphs 21-26).
Regarding to Claim 13, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein a valve closing motion of the membrane is in a direction opposite to a direction of gas flowing into the gas pressure regulating valve (Paragraphs 21-26).
Regarding to Claim 14, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein a valve closing motion of the membrane is in a direction opposite to a direction of gas flowing into the gas pressure regulating valve (Paragraphs 21-26).
Regarding to Claim 15, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a gas outlet conduit downstream of the membrane (Fig. 2, Part 34), and wherein the gas outlet conduit extends substantially in parallel with the membrane (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 16, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a gas outlet conduit downstream of the membrane (Fig. 2, Part 34), and wherein the gas outlet conduit extends substantially in parallel with the membrane (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 17, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a gas outlet conduit downstream of the membrane (Fig. 2, Part 34), and wherein the gas outlet conduit extends substantially in parallel with the membrane (Fig. 2).
Regarding to Claim 18, Harvey teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the gas pressure regulating valve comprises a gas outlet conduit downstream of the membrane (Fig. 2, Part 34), and wherein the gas outlet conduit extends substantially in parallel with the membrane (Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey (US2003/0034016 A1) in view of Daiber (US2015/0275718 A1).
Regarding to Claim 7, Harvey fails to explicitly disclose, but Daiber teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein seen perpendicularly to a general plane of the membrane, a center of the membrane is offset from a center of the valve seat [Daiber teaches a valve comprises a membrane (Daiber, Fig. 2, Part 5) and the center of the membrane is offset from a center of a valve seat (Daiber, Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 31) to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harvey to incorporate the teachings of Daiber to design the membrane of a valve in a certain way in order to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).
Regarding to Claim 8, Harvey fails to explicitly disclose, but Daiber teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein the center of the membrane is offset from the center of the valve seat towards the gas outlet conduit [Daiber teaches a valve comprises a membrane (Daiber, Fig. 2, Part 5) and the center of the membrane is offset from a center of a valve seat (Daiber, Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 31) to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harvey to incorporate the teachings of Daiber to design the membrane of a valve in a certain way in order to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).
Regarding to Claim 19, Harvey fails to explicitly disclose, but Daiber teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein seen perpendicularly to a general plane of the membrane, a center of the membrane is offset from a center of the valve seat [Daiber teaches a valve comprises a membrane (Daiber, Fig. 2, Part 5) and the center of the membrane is offset from a center of a valve seat (Daiber, Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 31) to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harvey to incorporate the teachings of Daiber to design the membrane of a valve in a certain way in order to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).
Regarding to Claim 20, Harvey fails to explicitly disclose, but Daiber teaches a crankcase gas separator, wherein seen perpendicularly to a general plane of the membrane, a center of the membrane is offset from a center of the valve seat [Daiber teaches a valve comprises a membrane (Daiber, Fig. 2, Part 5) and the center of the membrane is offset from a center of a valve seat (Daiber, Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 31) to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harvey to incorporate the teachings of Daiber to design the membrane of a valve in a certain way in order to install a sensor to detect the movement of the valve (Daiber, Paragraph 32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Szepessy (US7704300B2) teaches an air-oil separator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
