DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (Fig. 25), and Sub-Species in Fig. 30C, in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson 4,213,307.
Watson discloses, regarding claim 1, a pump system comprising: a pump housing (10, 12, 14); a duct (combination 58, 62, and 68) fluidly coupled to the pump housing, a first portion 58 of the duct to include a mixture of an oil and a supercritical fluid, a second portion 68 of the duct to include the supercritical fluid; and a separator 61 positioned in a third portion 62 of the duct between the first portion 58 of the duct and the second portion 68 of the duct, the separator 61 to separate the oil in the mixture from the supercritical fluid, wherein the separator 61 changes a flow direction of at least one of the supercritical fluid or the oil (clearly shown in Fig. 1, see how the flow direction turns 90 digress to move through 61; Regarding the “supercritical” limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, or elsewhere in a claim, then it meets the claim.).
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster 8,915,991
Foster discloses, regarding claim 1, a pump system 10 comprising: a pump housing 30; a duct (combination 46, 48, 54, 55, 60, 64, 68, and 74) fluidly coupled to the pump housing 30, a first portion 48 of the duct to include a mixture of an oil and a supercritical fluid, a second portion 74 of the duct to include the supercritical fluid; and a separator 41 positioned in a third portion (46, 54, 55, 60, 64, 68) of the duct between the first portion 48 of the duct and the second portion 74 of the duct, the separator 41 to separate the oil in the mixture from the supercritical fluid, wherein the separator 41 changes a flow direction of at least one of the supercritical fluid or the oil (Regarding the “supercritical” limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, or elsewhere in a claim, then it meets the claim.); Re claim 2, wherein the separator 41 is a first separator, further including a second separator 54/55/66 positioned in the third portion of the duct downstream of the first separator 41 (clearly shown in Fig. 2); Re claim 3, wherein the first separator 41 is a dynamic separator, and wherein the second separator 54/55/66 is a stationary separator (substantially broad, portion 55 of the separator is stationary); Re claim 4, wherein the separator 41 is configured to rotate to change the flow direction; Re claim 5, wherein the separator 41 includes: a swirler 42; a bearing 56 to mount the swirler 42 in the third portion of the duct; and a motor (inherent) operatively coupled to the swirler 42 to cause the swirler 42 to rotate; Re claim 6, wherein the separator 41 includes a rotatable cone 42, wherein axial ends of the rotatable cone 42 are open to enable the supercritical fluid to pass through a middle of the duct (clearly shown in Fig. 2); Re claim 7, wherein the rotatable cone 42 includes holes between the axial ends (between vanes), wherein the holes face an inner surface of the duct (portion 60); Re claim 8, wherein the separator 41 includes a rotatable shaft 56 and vanes (on 42) extending from the rotatable shaft 56, wherein the rotatable cone 42 is positioned around the rotatable shaft 56 in the third portion of the duct; Re claim 10, wherein the separator 41 includes: a rotatable shaft 42/56 including vanes (on 42); and a conical casing 44 positioned around the rotatable shaft 42/56, wherein the conical casing 44 includes open axial ends and holes between the open axial ends (see duct portion 60).
Foster discloses, regarding claim 11, a pump system 10 comprising: a pump housing 30; a duct (combination 46, 48, 54, 55, 60, 64, 68, and 74) fluidly coupled to the pump housing 30, wherein a portion 48 of the duct includes a mixture of an oil and a supercritical fluid; and a separator 41 positioned in the duct to separate the oil in the mixture from the supercritical fluid, wherein the separator 41 is configured to rotate to cause the mixture to encounter a centrifugal force (see separator turbine 42); Re claim 12, wherein the separator 41 is configured to rotate to cause the oil to encounter a first centrifugal force and the supercritical fluid to encounter a second centrifugal force, wherein the first centrifugal force is greater than the second centrifugal force (this is clearly the case, see col. 3, lines 11-40); Re claim 13, the separator 41 is a first separator, further including a second separator 54/55/66 positioned downstream of the first separator 41; Re claim 14, wherein the second separator 54/55/66 is stationary in the duct (substantially broad, portion 55 of the separator is stationary); Re claim 15, wherein the separator 41 includes a cone 44 including open axial ends and holes that face an interior surface of the duct (see duct portion 60); Re claim 16, wherein the separator 41 includes a rotatable shaft 56 and vanes (on 42) extending from the rotatable shaft 56; Re claim 17, wherein the separator 41 includes a cone 42 including open axial ends and holes (between vanes) that face an interior surface of the duct (see portion 60), wherein the cone 42 is positioned around the rotatable shaft 56.
Foster discloses, regarding claim 18, a pump system 10 comprising: means for compressing a fluid (see Fig. 1), wherein the fluid includes a supercritical fluid and an oil; means for housing 30 the means for compressing; means for transporting the fluid coupled to the means for housing 30; and means for separating 41 the supercritical fluid and the oil positioned in the means for transporting, wherein the means for separating 41 is configured to rotate to cause the oil to encounter a first centrifugal force and the supercritical fluid to encounter a second centrifugal force, wherein the first centrifugal force is greater than the second centrifugal force (this is clearly the case, see col. 3, lines 11-40); Re claim 19, wherein the means for separating 41 is a first means for separating, further including second means for separating 54/55/56 downstream of the first means for separating 41; Re claim 20, wherein the second means for separating 54/55/66 is stationary (substantially broad, portion 55 of the separator is stationary).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter J Bertheaud whose telephone number is (571)272-3476. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm M-F.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 5712707878. 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.
PJB
/PETER J BERTHEAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights