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 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 7-12, and 21-31 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.
Claims 7 and 21 state “via a feedback loop”. Claims 32 and 34 specify wherein the feedback loop is an open feedback loop which means no feedback / no feedback loop. Therefore, this contradiction makes it unclear what is being claimed in claims 7 and 21 as claims 32 and 34 must further limit claims 7 and 21. In other words, because claims 32 and 43 specifically require no feedback / no feedback loop, then no feedback loop can be required in claims 7 and 21 as dependent claims must further limit a claim from which they depend (i.e. dependent claims cannot eliminate/remove a limitation from a claim from which they depend).
Regarding claims 7, 11, 21 and 26, it is unclear what “original position” refers to. No explanation is provide in the specification as filed. In claim 26, applicant claims both an original position and a determined position. Thus, a “determined position” does not appear to be an original position. Thus, it is unclear what is being claimed when applicant refers to an original position.
Claim 11 twice states “a position. It is unclear if these are referring to the same position, or not. And, it is unclear how the positions in claim 11 relate to the “a position” which is twice recited in claim 7. Claim 11 states “determine a position” and “the original position”. It is unclear if “determine a position” and “the original position” are referring to the same position. If so, the claim should be changed to specify this.
The limitation “the selected operation” in claim 23 has improper antecedent basis.
Claim 26 states “a determined position” and “the original position”. It is unclear if these are referring to the same position, or not. If so, the claim should be changed to specify this.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above.
The claims will be examined as best understood under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and interpretations of the indefinite limitations will be provided as mappings to the disclosure of the prior art as indicated in the prior art rejections below as per MPEP 2173.06 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12, 21-23, 25-32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn US 5820352 in view of Zeng CN 202811401 U.
Gunn discloses:
7. An air compressor control system for an engine driven welding power system (See e.g. Fig 2 wherein the compressor is structurally capable of being used in a welding power system. See MPEP 2114 II including: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”.) comprising: a user interface (60) configured to receive a command from an operator corresponding to an operating capacity of the engine or a desired air pressure level (see user interface 60 in Fig 3, see operator entering/modifying parameter commands in col 6 lines 6-24, and see setpoint discharge pressure input by the operator in col 10 lines 1-7); one or more sensors configured to measure characteristics of the system including air pressure level, temperature, airflow, and feedback information from the air compressor or the engine configured to drive the air compressor (as best understood, see pressure sensor 50); an electric inlet valve (26) integrated within an air compressor (see 10 in Fig 2) and configured to regulate airflow of the air compressor based on a position of the electric inlet valve (see col 10 lines 55-65); and a controller (42) to control the inlet valve, the controller configured to: receive information regarding the air pressure level (see e.g. col 10 lines 1-7), the temperature (see e.g. col 8, lines 18-21), and the feedback information from the air compressor (see e.g. 216 in Fig 9A); and control a position of the electric inlet valve as determined, based on the information and an original position of the electric inlet valve via a feedback loop (as best understood, see electric motor/actuator 11/19, and actuator motor control routine in Fig 13, col 10 lines 1-7, lines 13-19, and lines 55-65 wherein the change in position is determined based on the current/original position as the current/original position determined the current pressure reading and see col 10 lines 55-65 wherein the original position could also be read as not fully open or not fully closed. It is noted that in dependent claim 32 [which further limits claim 7] applicant specifies the feedback loop is an open feedback loop meaning no feedback is required. Therefore, no feedback is required in claim 7 as claim 32 further limits claim 7.).
As best understood, Gunn does not disclose the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor and thus does not disclose analyze and employ the information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve, based on an amount of airflow required.
However, Zeng discloses the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor (see e.g. “The control system comprises a pressure sensor and a flow sensor which are used for collecting pressure and flow at a front end of an emptying valve of the centrifugal air compressor respectively; a first control unit for controlling speed of a speed controller or an opening degree of an inlet valve in the centrifugal air compressor, so as to realize a specified flow value or pressure value input by a user” in the abstract.)
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize air flow information to control the inlet valve of the air compressor of Gunn as taught by Zeng to gain the benefit of allowing the functionality of realizing a specified flow value input by a user as taught by Zeng in the abstract.
Gunn as modified above discloses (all references to Gunn unless noted otherwise):
Regarding claim 8, Gunn discloses the controller further configured to automatically determine the desired air pressure level in the air compressor (see “READ SETPOINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” in Fig 9A, and air in col 4 lines 27-28) based on another command corresponding to a welding operation or a the air pressure level (See Fig 7 wherein during the interrupt control routine, the controller 42 completes a sensor scan/measurement step 152 before the pressure control routine 200 step begins wherein Fig 9A shows the pressure control routine includes a “READ SET POINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” step. Thus, as shown in the controller program flow chart, carrying out the “READ SET POINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” step is based on the prior completion of the sensor scan/measurement step in the program flow chart. Therefore, the step of automatic/programmed determination of the particular setpoint discharge pressure entered by the operator and saved in memory is based on prior completion of the current sensor scans/measurements including the pressure sensor scan/measurement.).
11. (Currently Amended) The system as defined in claim 7, further comprising a motor (11/19) configured to adjust a position of the electric inlet valve (26), wherein the controller is configured to: determine a position of the electric inlet valve (see fully open and fully closed in col 10 lines 55-65); calculate a change in position of the electric inlet valve based on the pressure difference (see col 10 lines 22-31); and control the motor to adjust the position of the electric inlet valve based on the calculated change in position from the original position (as best understood, see col 10 lines 55-65).
12. The power system as defined in claim 7, wherein the one or more sensors include a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 50).
Gunn discloses:
21. (New) An air compressor control system (see Fig 2) in an engine driven welding power system (See e.g. Fig 2 wherein the compressor is structurally capable of being used in a welding power system. See MPEP 2114 II including: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”.) comprising: an electric inlet valve (26) integrated within an air compressor (see 10 in Fig 2) and configured to regulate airflow of the air compressor based on a position of the electric inlet valve (see col 10 lines 55-65); and
a controller (42) to control the electric inlet valve, the controller configured to: receive information regarding air pressure level (see e.g. col 10 lines 1-7), temperature (see e.g. col 8, lines 18-21), and feedback information from the air compressor (see e.g. 216 in Fig 9A); analyze and employ the information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve, based on a position of the electric inlet valve (see electric motor/actuator 11/19, and actuator motor control routine in Fig 13, col 10 lines 1-7, lines 13-19, and lines 55-65 wherein the change in position is determined based on the current position as the current position determined the current pressure reading) or an amount of airflow required; and control a position of the electric inlet valve as determined, based on the information and an original position of the electric inlet valve via a feedback loop (as best understood, see electric motor/actuator 11/19, and actuator motor control routine in Fig 13, col 10 lines 1-7, lines 13-19, and lines 55-65 wherein the change in position is determined based on the current/original position as the current/original position determined the current pressure reading and see col 10 lines 55-65 wherein the original position could also be read as not fully open or not fully closed. It is noted that in dependent claim 32 [which further limits claim 7] applicant specifies the feedback loop is an open feedback loop meaning no feedback is required. Therefore, no feedback is required in claim 7 as claim 32 further limits claim 7.).
As best understood, Gunn does not disclose the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor.
However, Zeng discloses the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor (see e.g. “The control system comprises a pressure sensor and a flow sensor which are used for collecting pressure and flow at a front end of an emptying valve of the centrifugal air compressor respectively; a first control unit for controlling speed of a speed controller or an opening degree of an inlet valve in the centrifugal air compressor, so as to realize a specified flow value or pressure value input by a user” in the abstract.)
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize air flow information to control the inlet valve of the air compressor of Gunn as taught by Zeng to gain the benefit of allowing the functionality of realizing a specified flow value input by a user as taught by Zeng in the abstract.
Gunn as modified above discloses (all references to Gunn unless noted otherwise):
22. (New) The system as defined in claim 21, further comprising a sensor configured to measure the air pressure level (pressure sensor 50), the temperature, or the airflow.
23. (New) The system as defined in claim 21, further comprising a user interface (60) configured to receive the command corresponding to the selected operation from an operator (see col 6 lines 6-24 and col 10 lines 1-7).
25. (New) The system as defined in claim 21, wherein an electrically controlled and powered motor (11/19) is configured to adjust a position of the electric inlet valve (26).
26. (New) The system as defined in claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a determined position of the electric inlet valve (see fully open and fully closed in col 10 lines 55-65); and calculate a change in position of the electric inlet valve based on the pressure difference (see e.g. col 10 lines 22-31).
27. (New) The system as defined in claim 26, wherein the controller is further configured to control the motor to adjust the position of the electric inlet valve based on the calculated change in position (see col 10 lines 55-65).
28. (New) The system as defined in claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to:
command the air compressor to shut off (see stop button 76); and
control the motor to maintain the electric inlet valve in a closed position (see 520 in Fig 11) to prevent oil mist and/or fumes from evacuating the compressor case as the air compressor cools down (This is a desired result of closing the inlet valve. Gunn closes the inlet valve and is capable of attaining this desired result of e.g. preventing fumes from evacuating the compressor case as the air compressor cools down. Therefore, Gunn as modified above meets the limitations of the apparatus claim.).
29. (New) The system as defined in claim 22, further comprising a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 50).
30. (New) The system as defined in claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to receive information from other sources (see e.g. prime mover speed sensor 54), including at least one of engine inputs corresponding to speed or power (see e.g. prime mover speed sensor 54), and operator inputs from the user interface.
31. (New) The system as defined in claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to receive information from other sources (see e.g. prime mover speed sensor 54), including at least one of engine inputs corresponding to speed or power (see e.g. prime mover speed sensor 54), and operator inputs from the user interface.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, Gunn as modified above discloses wherein the feedback loop is an open feedback loop (See applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025 wherein applicant argues “Gunn is relied on, but Gunn does not control a position of the electric inlet valve as claimed via a feedback loop”.).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salsich US 20090294415 in view of Gunn US 5820352 in further view of Zeng CN 202811401 U.
Regarding claim 7, Salsich discloses An air compressor (see e.g. 0025) control system (see e.g. 13) in a welding power system (see e.g. Fig 1), comprising: a user interface configured to receive a command from an operator (operating mode selector 37) corresponding to an operating capacity of an engine or a desired air pressure level (“Controller 13A is further configured to determine an input gas pressure in the plasma cutting system 10 as a function of output pressure and the drive signal. In one embodiment, a look-up table is used to set forth an input pressure and an output pressure associated with each of a number of cutting operations selected by way of the operating mode selector 37.” in 0028); one or more sensors configured to measure one or more characteristics of the system including air pressure level, temperature, airflow, and feedback information from the air compressor or an engine configured to drive the air compressor (see e.g. 60A in 0027 which can measure input gas pressure).
Salsich does not provide any details of the air compressor and therefore does not disclose an electric inlet valve integrated within an air compressor and configured to regulate airflow of the air compressor based on a position of the electric inlet valve; and
a controller to control the electric inlet valve, the controller configured to: receive information regarding air pressure level, temperature, airflow, and feedback information from the air compressor; analyze and employ the information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve, based on a position of the electric inlet valve or an amount of airflow required; and control a position of the electric inlet valve as determined, based on the information and an original position of the electric inlet valve via a feedback loop.
Gunn discloses an engine (see 14) driven air compressor (see 10) including an electric inlet valve (26) integrated within an air compressor (see 10 in Fig 2) and configured to regulate airflow of the air compressor based on a position of the electric inlet valve (see col 10 lines 55-65); and a controller (42) to control the electric inlet valve, the controller configured to: receive information regarding air pressure level (see e.g. col 10 lines 1-7), temperature (see e.g. col 8, lines 18-21), and feedback information from the air compressor (see e.g. 216 in Fig 9A); analyze and employ the information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve, based on a position of the electric inlet valve (see electric motor/actuator 11/19, and actuator motor control routine in Fig 13, col 10 lines 1-7, lines 13-19, and lines 55-65 wherein the change in position is determined based on the current position as the current position determined the current pressure reading) or an amount of airflow required; and control a position of the electric inlet valve as determined, based on the information and an original position of the electric inlet valve via a feedback loop (as best understood, see electric motor/actuator 11/19, and actuator motor control routine in Fig 13, col 10 lines 1-7, lines 13-19, and lines 55-65 wherein the change in position is determined based on the current/original position as the current/original position determined the current pressure reading and see col 10 lines 55-65 wherein the original position could also be read as not fully open or not fully closed. It is noted that in dependent claim 32 [which further limits claim 7] applicant specifies the feedback loop is an open feedback loop meaning no feedback is required. Therefore, no feedback is required in claim 7 as claim 32 further limits claim 7.).
A simple substitution of one air compressor for another with the predictable result of providing compressed air has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the air compressor of Gunn in the system of Salsich as a simple substitution for the air compressor of Salsich to gain the benefit of using a known air compressor.
As best understood, Gunn does not disclose the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor.
However, Zeng discloses the use of airflow information to determine an output to the electric inlet valve of the air compressor (see e.g. “The control system comprises a pressure sensor and a flow sensor which are used for collecting pressure and flow at a front end of an emptying valve of the centrifugal air compressor respectively; a first control unit for controlling speed of a speed controller or an opening degree of an inlet valve in the centrifugal air compressor, so as to realize a specified flow value or pressure value input by a user” in the abstract.)
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize air flow information to control the inlet valve of the air compressor of Salsich as modified by Gunn as taught by Zeng to gain the benefit of allowing the functionality of realizing a specified flow value input by a user as taught by Zeng in the abstract.
Salsich as modified above discloses:
Regarding claim 8, Salsich as modified above discloses: the controller further configured to automatically determine the desired air pressure level in the air compressor (see Gunn including “READ SETPOINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” in Fig 9A, and air in col 4 lines 27-28 of Gunn) based on another command corresponding to an operation or the measurement (See Gunn including Fig 7 wherein during the interrupt control routine, the controller 42 completes a sensor scan/measurement step 152 before the pressure control routine 200 step begins wherein Fig 9A shows the pressure control routine includes a “READ SET POINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” step. Thus, as shown in the controller program flow chart, carrying out the “READ SET POINT DISCHARGE PRESSURE” step is based on the prior completion of the sensor scan/measurement step in the program flow chart. Therefore, the step of automatic/programmed determination of the particular setpoint discharge pressure entered by the operator and saved in memory is based on prior completion of the current sensor scans/measurements including the pressure sensor scan/measurement.).
9. (Currently Amended) The system as defined in claim 8, wherein the another command corresponding to the operation is a selection of one or more of a gouging operation or a plasma cutting operation (see “Controller 13A is further configured to determine an input gas pressure in the plasma cutting system 10 as a function of output pressure and the drive signal. In one embodiment, a look-up table is used to set forth an input pressure and an output pressure associated with each of a number of cutting operations selected by way of the operating mode selector 37.” in 0028 of Salsich).
10. (Currently Amended) The system as defined in claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to: receive the selected gouging or plasma cutting operation from the user interface; and determine the desired air pressure for the air compressor based on the selected operation (see “Controller 13A is further configured to determine an input gas pressure in the plasma cutting system 10 as a function of output pressure and the drive signal. In one embodiment, a look-up table is used to set forth an input pressure and an output pressure associated with each of a number of cutting operations selected by way of the operating mode selector 37.” in 0028 of Salsich).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn US 5820352 in view of Zeng CN 202811401 U in further view of Renner US 20110052415.
Regarding claim 24, Gunn as modified above does not disclose wherein the command corresponds to a gouging or plasma cutting operation.
Renner discloses the use of an air compressor for supplying various air-operated devices including a plasma cutter (see e.g. 0025).
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the compressor of Gunn to supply air-operated devices including a plasma cutter as taught by Renner to gain the benefit of enabling the cutting of metals.
Claim(s) 33, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn US 5820352 in view of Zeng CN 202811401 U in further view of Welz US 6279870.
Gunn does not specifically disclose the use of a feedback loop and thus does not disclose the limitations of claims 33 and 35.
Welz discloses the use of a feedback loop for valve control (see e.g. “To achieve precise position control, valve actuator 33 performs closed loop control by commanding flow-control valve member 18 to a desired valve position with motor 104, reading valve position feedback signals generated by position encoder 108, comparing the valve position feedback
signal with calibration parameters stored in control module 112, and repositioning flow-control valve member 18 to the desired valve position if it is determined that flow-control valve member 18 is not in the desired valve position” in col 8 lines 33-42.
Before the effective filing date of the application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a closed feedback loop as taught by Welz in the system of Gunn as modified above to gain the benefit of achieving precise position control as taught by Welz in col 8 lines 33-42.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments concerning the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 7, 21, 32, and 34, claims 32 and 34 specify open feedback loop which means there is no feedback / no feedback loop. Since claims 32 and 34 must further limit claims 7 and 21 respectively, there cannot be any feedback / feedback loop required in claims 7 and 21. In other words, because claims 32 and 43 specifically require no feedback / no feedback loop, then no feedback loop can be required in claims 7 and 21 as dependent claims must further limit a claim from which they depend (i.e. dependent claims cannot eliminate/remove a limitation from a claim from which they depend). Applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025 confirm the limitation of claim 7, 21, 32, 34 are met by Gunn when applicant argues “Gunn is relied on, but Gunn does not control a position of the electric inlet valve as claimed via a feedback loop”. Therefore, by applicant’s own admission Gunn meets the limitations of claims 7, 21, 32, and 34.
Regarding claims 33 and 35, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference, Welz, is now being used to teach the limitations which applicant argues.
Applicant argues:
With respect to "original position," it is clear that it is the original position before the position of the inlet valve has been controlled. It is also a different recitation than "a position."
Examiner’s reply:
If the term “original position” which is unexplained in the specification is intended to mean a position before the inlet valve is controlled as applicant now contents after the filing date of the application, applicant should simply amend the claim to specify this meaning. The examiner also submits the terms such as first position, second position, etc. can be used to clarify the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746