DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 26 May 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 18, 20-24 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-14, and 21 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction. Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 15, 18, 20, 22-24 are examined. The amendments create new 112(b) issues.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant recites new limitation in claims 1, 20 and 24, “the system is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling.” The support for the limitation and word “hold” comes from applicant’s spec (par 0075-0077). Applicant’s spec, par 0075, indicates that when the system “does not have a flexible coupling device between the rotor shaft and the transmission shaft” that it enables “the bearings which hold the coupling device to be removed.” This indicates that the claimed configuration is met when the mechanical system does not have said flexible coupling.
Examiner notes that applicant refers to US 2004/0179961 as Pugnet, while the last office action referred to the prior art as Laboube. Both Laboube and Pugnet are named inventors and either name could reasonably be used as a citation shorthand for US 2004/0179961. References to Laboube and Pugnet in this action, applicant’s remarks, and the previous office action will be interpreted as references to US 2004/0179961 as appropriate. This office action will continue to refer to the reference as Laboube to remain consistent.
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.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “compaction element” in claim 1, 20, 21 and 24 as claims 1, 20, 21 and 24 describes fixing flanges as a component of the compaction element, which gives structure to the functionally claimed element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-5, 8-15, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 24 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.
At issue in the 112(b) is that applicant has claimed elements of two mutually exclusive embodiments. For reference, the relevant portions of the Fig 7 embodiment and fig 16-17 embodiment are.
Applicant discloses the embodiment of Fig 7 as: Compaction element 22 comprises a fixing flange 22a (par 0125); Second coupling flange (39); Median shaft (40); First coupling flange (38); Transmission shaft (16).
Applicant discloses the embodiment of fig 16-17 as: Compaction element 22 comprising a fixing flange 22a, (par 0171); Central threaded hole (55) in the fixing flange (22a) and the threaded end of the shaft (16) insert into the hole. Examiner notes there is no median shaft, no second coupling fling and no first coupling flange.
Claim 1 recites “a first compaction element comprising a fixing flange,” and “a second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element [comprising a fixing flange] … one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling directly connected to the second coupling.”
This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the first coupling to second coupling connection.
Claim 1 also recites “The transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange [the central threaded hole is disclosed as being in the first compaction element].” This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the threaded central pin.
Claim 1 also recites “the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange.” Since the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange this now requires that the threaded central pin connection be separate from the first coupling to second coupling connection. This creates an indefinite claim.
Prior to the current amendment, the “second coupling” could be interpreted as “a central threaded hole” and the “first coupling” could be interpreted as “a threaded central pin” on the transmission shaft. With the current amendment specifying “the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange” the transmission shaft is now claimed as connected in two separate ways to the fixing flange. The first connection is through the first coupling at the end of the transmission shaft and the second coupling separate from the fixing flange (which is applicant’s disclosed “first coupling flange” and “second coupling flange”). The second connection is through the threaded central pin at the end of the transmission shaft and the central threaded hole in the fixing flange. These two connections are separate structures and mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end; specifically, the first embodiment of fig 7 and the second embodiment of figures 16 and 17. It is indefinite to claim two mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end occurring simultaneously; therefore claim 1 is rejected for indefiniteness. Dependent claims 14, 15, 22, and 23 are correspondingly rejected.
Claim 20 recites “the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange at the fixed end and a second coupling … the first coupling integral with a transmission shaft … the first coupling and the second coupling are directly fixed together to form a rigid intermediate coupling.” This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the first coupling to second coupling connection.
Claim 20 also recites “the transmission shaft comprising a threaded central pin held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange [the central threaded hole is disclosed as being in the first compaction element].” This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the threaded central pin.
Claim 20 also recites “the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange.” Since the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange this now requires that the threaded central pin connection be separate from the first coupling to second coupling connection. This creates an indefinite claim.
In the same way as in claim 1, Prior to the current amendment, the “second coupling” could be interpreted as “a central threaded hole” and the “first coupling” could be interpreted as “a threaded central pin” on the transmission shaft. With the current amendment specifying “the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange” the transmission shaft is now claimed as connected in two separate ways to the fixing flange. The first connection is through the first coupling at the end of the transmission shaft and the second coupling separate from the fixing flange (which is applicant’s disclosed “first coupling flange” and “second coupling flange”). The second connection is through the threaded central pin at the end of the transmission shaft and the central threaded hole in the fixing flange. These two connections are separate structures and mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end; specifically, the first embodiment of fig 7 and the second embodiment of figures 16 and 17. It is indefinite to claim two mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end occurring simultaneously; therefore claim 20 is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 24 recites “the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange … a second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element… one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling connected to the second coupling so that the transmission shaft is connected directly to the first compaction element.” This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the first coupling to second coupling connection.
Claim 24 also recites “transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange [the central threaded hole is disclosed as being in the first compaction element].” This claims the transmission shaft connection to the fixing flange via the threaded central pin.
Claim 24 also recites “the tie rods terminate within the fixing flange and are recessed from the second coupling … the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods and is arranged to transmit torque only via the fixing flange.” Since the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods, the second coupling must be a different element than the fixing flange where the tie rods terminate therefore this limitation also effectively requires that the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange. Since the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange this now requires that the threaded central pin connection be separate from the first coupling to second coupling connection. This creates an indefinite claim.
In the same way as in claims 1 and 20, Prior to the current amendment, the “second coupling” could be interpreted as “a central threaded hole” and the “first coupling” could be interpreted as “a threaded central pin” on the transmission shaft. With the current amendment specifying “the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange” the transmission shaft is now claimed as connected in two separate ways to the fixing flange. The first connection is through the first coupling at the end of the transmission shaft and the second coupling separate from the fixing flange (which is applicant’s disclosed “first coupling flange” and “second coupling flange”). The second connection is through the threaded central pin at the end of the transmission shaft and the central threaded hole in the fixing flange. These two connections are separate structures and mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end; specifically, the first embodiment of fig 7 and the second embodiment of figures 16 and 17. It is indefinite to claim two mutually exclusive embodiments of the transmission shaft end occurring simultaneously; therefore claim 24 is rejected for indefiniteness. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13 and 18 are correspondingly rejected.
Claim 24 recites “a second coupling flange integral with the first compaction element, a first coupling flange integral with the transmission shaft, where the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be, after being connected, fixed to each other.” This claims that the named pieces are integral pieces.
Claim 24 also recites “the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft.” This claims a separable connection.
Claim 24 also recites “the tie rods terminate within the fixing flange and are recessed from the second coupling … the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods and is arranged to transmit torque only via the fixing flange.” Since the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods, the second coupling must be a different element than the fixing flange where the tie rods terminate, therefore this limitation also effectively requires that the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange. With the second coupling separate from the fixing flange, the shaft threaded connection to the fixing flange must be at a position different than the first coupling to the second coupling. This creates a contradiction because the second coupling to fixing flange is claimed as integral, so there is no place to put the separable connection to the fixing flange from the transmission shaft. Therefore, it is unclear which pieces are intended to be integral and which are intended to be separable, which is indefinites. Therefore claim 24 is rejected for indefiniteness on this issue. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13 and 18 are correspondingly rejected.
For the limited purpose of examination, “the transmission shaft comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central hole … [in] the fixing flange” will be considered as an alternative embodiment to “the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling directly connected to the second coupling.”
Response to Arguments
Page 10 of the arguments: Applicant argues that Ahrens does not address coupling the rotor to a separate shaft or machinery. Applicant has overlooked that Ahrens specifically discloses driving units with the rotor (c 2 ln 25-27), and further that attaching elements to the shaft stub to be driven is known in the prior art (c 1 ln 26-30). Applicant’s argument is not supported by the record.
On page 10, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant has overlooked the teaching from Ahrens that use of their rotor provides a cost-effective construction (Ahrens, c 1 ln 66 - c 2 ln 3; and cited in the motivation to combine).
On page 11, Applicant alleges that the office action suggests “eliminate” any tie rod through holes in a coupling if attaching one to Ahrens’ stub. Applicant has not shown where this suggestion is made in the Office action regarding the “tie rods.” Rather, the term “eliminate” is only used in the previous office action when discussing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would eliminate an unnecessary bearing as claimed in claim 22 (See the rejection of claim 22 in the last office action). It is specifically used to discuss applicant’s negative limitation as to why one would install bearings holding the coupling device. Applicant’s argument is not supported in the record.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Ahrens does not teach placing a separate torque transmitting coupling on the stub. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the separate torque transmitting coupling is taught by Timmermann.
Furthermore, applicant’s argument is toward an issue that is a matter that is rejected under a 112(b). Applicants has indefinitely claimed the torque transmitting coupling. It is unclear how the first coupling and the second coupling or the threaded central pin and central threaded hole work together to transmit torque, when they are mutually exclusive couplings that do not exist in the same assembly as claimed (See 112(b) rejection above).
Page 11, applicant argues that Laboube teaches away from using a purely rigid coupling with no intermediate bearing by implying it is problematic unless alignment is perfect. Applicant has overlooked that Laboube is cited for its background prior art which explains that the rigid coupling between rotor and motor without a flexible coupling is known in the prior art. It is a citation to a nonpreferred embodiment and not a teaching away. It is a rule that nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art (MPEP 2123). The rule is that a teaching away refers to combinations and modifications that render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2145). Laboube does not propose any modifications to the rigid coupling; instead, it discloses the rigid coupling connecting a motor rotor and pump impeller in its entirety. The modification that is used in the combination, that replaces the rotor of Laboube with the rotor of Ahrens is not addressed by any statement that could be considered a teaching away. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unconvincing.
Page 12, applicant alleges that their specification discloses that the central screw joins the rotor fixing flange and ensure a concentric, robust connection, enhancing the system highspeed capability. Applicant’s argument for enhancing highspeed capability is not supported by their specification and is a mere allegation of benefit of the central screw. The highspeed capability is only addressed as a benefit for the two rotor third and fourth embodiments (Applicant’s fig 3 and fig 4, par 0040, 0108-0109, 0125).
Page 12, applicant alleges no motivation to combine the Timmerman reference to teach the single central threaded pin. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant has overlooked the teaching from Timmerman of the benefit easing the assembly and torque transfer of the motor (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4).
Page 12 and 13, applicant argues that there is not teaching to make the compaction element and the coupling flange into a single integrated component which is monolithic as claimed in claim 24. Applicant’s argument is directed to an issue at a 112(b) as shown above. Applicant has indefinitely claimed the integrated compaction element and coupling flange. It is unclear how the first coupling and the second coupling or the threaded central pin and central threaded hole work together to transmit torque, when they are claimed both as integrated and yet also have a central threaded connection, which indicates they are not integrated.
Furthermore, as noted in the prior office actions, Ahrens fig 1 shows integral shaft stub (6) which receives tie rods (2). In the combination, the second coupling flange is attached to the shaft stub (6). Attaching the second coupling to the end of shaft stub (6) and making an integral compaction element is a result of using a conventional fixing method such as a welding of the second coupling to the end of stub (6). A note that the conventional joining of the second coupling to the shaft stub results in a second coupling flange integral with the first compaction element. Nevertheless, as noted above, it is unclear whether applicant intends for the connection to the fixing flange to be integral or formed of a threaded central connection. It is contradiction because a monolithic structure cannot be composed of several components connected by a threaded central connection.
Page 13, applicant argues that nethire Laboube no Ahrens teaches tie rods terminated at the fixing flange and then not extending to a second coupling flange. Applicant’s argument is not convincing. The claimed limitation is a result of the Ahrens rotor being used in a motor pump combination as taught in Laboube. Specifically, applicant’s limitations are met when Ahrens shaft stub has the Laboube second coupling attached in order to transfer torque to the first shaft stub through Laboube’s conventional flanged shaft coupling.
Applicant speculates that if any coupling structure where added to the ends of Ahrens’ shaft stubs, that the Ahrens’ tie rods “would naturally continue into any bolted connection if one were added to its rotor stub.” Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing, Ahrens clearly shows (fig 1 and fig 2) the tie rods (2) terminating at the end of the rotor shaft stub (6). In any combination of Ahrens, it is reasonable to conclude that the tie rods would be used and function in the combination in the same way that they are used in the references individually, such that they terminate as shown in fig 1. And that the shaft stub extends past the tie rod ends to make any connection to drive a rotating unit (Ahrens, c 2 ln 25-27).
Page 12, Applicant again argues that Laboube teaches away from a system that operates without bearings holding the intermediate coupling. As shown above, Applicant has overlooked that Laboube is cited for its background prior art which explains that the rigid coupling between rotor and motor without a flexible coupling is known in the prior art. It is a citation to a nonpreferred embodiment and not a teaching away. It is a rule that nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art (MPEP 2123). The rule is that a teaching away refers to combinations and modifications that render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2145). Laboube does not propose any modifications to the rigid coupling; instead, it discloses the rigid coupling connecting a motor rotor and pump impeller in its entirety. The modification that is used in the combination, that replaces the rotor of Laboube with the rotor of Ahrens is not addressed by any statement that could be considered a teaching away. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unconvincing.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 24, 4, 8, 15, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laboube aka Pugnet (US 2004/0179961) in view of Ahrens (US 6,441,532) in view of Timmermann (DE 102013208163 citations to machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Laboube fig 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Ahrens fig 1
Regarding claim 1, Laboube discloses a mechanical system (fig 1, par 0002) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14) comprising at least one rotor (12) … a second coupling (fig 1, the face of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor)… and a transmissions shaft (18) configured to transmit mechanical power to a mechanical device (compressor blades 16), with one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling (fig 1 depicts the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor stage) connected to the second coupling (flange of 22 nearer the compressor stage connects to the face of coupling 22 which is nearer the rotor) such that the transmission shaft is connected directly to the … rotor without a flexible coupling device (22 is a rigid coupling and not a flexible coupling, par 0002) and without any intermediate elastomeric or torsionally compliant element (fig 1 depicts no additional elastomeric or torsionally compliant element)… and wherein the second coupling comprises a coupling flange (fig 1 depicts a flange of coupling 22 on the face which is nearer the rotor) directly connected to a first coupling flange (the other coupling flange of 22) of the transmission shaft to form an intermediate coupling (22) that is structurally rigid, and wherein the system is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose that the rotor has a non-through shaft and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block enclosed between a first compaction element and a second compaction element, the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, … the second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element,… and wherein the fixing flange comprises opening configured to receive tie rods distributed uniformly over a diameter of the magnetic block, the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted, each of the tie rods having an end retained within the first compaction element, and wherein the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange and is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and a second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35) in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange comprises openings (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37, inherently the tie rods 2 which pass through short-circuit disks 4 inherently must pass through openings in short-circuit disks 4) configured to receive tie rods (tie rods 2) distributed … over a diameter of the magnetic block (tie rods 2 are arranged circumferentially, c 2 ln 66-67, c 3 ln 30-32), the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted (tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens’ electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s rigid coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens’ electric rotor to use with Laboube’s rigid coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s motor rotor would be removed from Laboube’s motor rotor shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6.
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on the tie rod being uniformly distributed.
The tie rods distributed uniformly over the magnetic block an obvious rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of the bolts would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, Ahrens uses tie rods to compact rotor elements. Any arrangement of the tie rods of the rotor that would allow compression of the rotor would be sufficient to accomplished the intended purpose of the tie rods. Applicant has not identified any particular problem solved or unexpected result of the uniform distribution of tie rods over what is suggested by the prior art. Therefore, the claimed uniform distribution of tie rods is obvious as a rearrangement of parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
588
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Timmermann fig 5
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5),
Where fastening screws (19) have an end retained (countersunk) within the flange adapter (3) into the mounting hole (17),
Wherein the flange adapter (3) is a separate piece than the transmission shaft (5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer of the motor (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4). As a result, the combination meets the limitation “wherein the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange and is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.”
It would be further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when combining Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmerman, to incorporate the wider mouth of the countersunk hole (17) capable of holding the end of a fastening screw (19) of Ahrens, which would result in the combination countersinking the tie rods (Ahrens, tie rods 2, fig 1, fig 2) of the combination. As a result, the combination meets the limitation each of the tie rods having an end retained within the first compaction element.
Regarding claim 24, Laboube discloses a mechanical system (fig 1, par 0002) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14) the mechanical system comprising at least one rotor (12) …
a second coupling (fig 2, the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor)… and
a transmission shaft (18) configured to transmit mechanical power to a mechanical device (compressor blades 16), with one end of the transmission shaft comprising a first coupling (the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor stage) connected to the second coupling (22 is a rigid coupling, par 0002) so that the transmission shaft (18) is connected directly to the second coupling of the rotor (par 0002) without a flexible coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005; it is clear that this embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009),
…
wherein the first coupling compresses a first coupling flange integral with the transmission shaft (Laboube fig 1 depicts the first flange of rigid coupling 22 closer to compressor rotor and shaft 18), the first coupling flange being configured to be, when secured, secured to the second coupling flange (Laboube, flanges are connected in rigid coupling 22 in order to transfer rotational energy from the motor to the compressor, par 0002)… and wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be, when secured, fixed to each other to together form an intermediate coupling (Laboube, the flanges form rigid coupling 22, par 0002), wherein the mechanical system is configured to operate without bearings that hold the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose that the rotor has a non-through shaft and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block enclosed between a first compaction element and a second compaction element, the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, … the second coupling at a free end of the first compaction element,… and wherein the fixing flange comprises opening configured to receive tie rods distributed uniformly over a diameter of the magnetic block, the threaded central pin defining a primary torque path independent of any tie rod structure, the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted, and wherein the second coupling is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted;
Wherein the tie rods terminate within the fixing flange and are recessed from the second coupling so as to avoid any structural participation in the coupling interface, and
wherein the second coupling comprises a second coupling flange integral with the first compaction element;
wherein the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods and is arranged to transmit torque only via the fixing flange, and
… wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and a second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35) in contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange comprises openings (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37, inherently the tie rods 2 which pass through short-circuit disks 4 inherently must pass through openings in short-circuit disks 4) configured to receive tie rods (tie rods 2) distributed … over a diameter of the magnetic block (tie rods 2 are arranged circumferentially, c 2 ln 66-67, c 3 ln 30-32), the tie rods being configured to keep magnetic sheets of the cylindrical magnetic block compacted (tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens’ electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s rigid coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens’ electric rotor to use with Laboube’s rigid coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s motor rotor would be removed from Laboube’s motor rotor shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6. It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to add a flange to the end of shaft stub (6) using conventional means such as welding, thereby meeting the limitation “the second coupling comprises a second coupling flange integral with the first compaction element.”
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on the tie rod being uniformly distributed.
The tie rods distributed uniformly over the magnetic block an obvious rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of the bolts would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, Ahrens uses tie rods to compact rotor elements. Any arrangement of the tie rods of the rotor that would allow compression of the rotor would be sufficient to accomplished the intended purpose of the tie rods. Applicant has not identified any particular problem solved or unexpected result of the uniform distribution of tie rods over what is suggested by the prior art. Therefore, the claimed uniform distribution of tie rods is obvious as a rearrangement of parts.
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5),
Where fastening screws (19) have an end retained (countersunk) within the flange adapter (3) into the mounting hole (17),
Wherein the flange adapter (3) is a separate piece than the transmission shaft (5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4). As a result, the combination meets the limitation “the threaded central pin defining a primary torque path independent of any tie rod structure, … wherein the second coupling is physically and functionally separate from the tie rods and is arranged to transmit torque only via the fixing flange”
It would be further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when combining Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmerman, to incorporate the wider mouth of the countersunk hole (17) capable of holding the end of a fastening screw (19) of Ahrens, which would result in the combination countersinking the tie rods (Ahrens, tie rods 2, fig 1, fig 2) of the combination. As a result, the combination meets the limitation wherein the tie rods terminate within the fixing flange and are recessed from the second coupling so as to avoid any structural participation in the coupling interface, and
Regarding claim 4, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches the mechanical system of claim 24, wherein the first and second compaction elements (Ahrens, shaft stubs 6) are of identical structure (Ahrens depicts shaft stubs 6 as identical in fig 1 and fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches the mechanical system of claim 24, further comprising a median shaft (fig 1, Ahrens shaft part of shaft stub 6, see annotated figure) connecting the fixing flange (Ahrens flange part of shaft stub 6) and the second coupling flange (Laboube in view Ahrens, flange of coupling 22 at the end of shaft stubs 6), whereby no other shaft is between the fixing flange and the second coupling flange.
Regarding claim 15, Laboube in view of Ahrens teaches a motor compressor (Laboube, compressor, par 0002) comprising a mechanical system (Laboube, multi-stage compressor, par 0002) according to claim 1, a same number (Laboube, fig 1, 1 motor and 1 electric rotor) of rotating electric machine (Laboube, fig 1 shows one motor) as rotor (Laboube fig 1 shows one rotor per motor, Laboube in view of Ahrens, Laboube’s rotor was substituted by Ahrens electric rotor) and a same number (Laboube fig 1 depicts one rotor and one shaft connecting that rotor to the compressor) of mechanical device (Laboube, multi stage compressor par 0002) as transmission shaft (Laboube compressor shaft 18), with each rotor being inserted into a different electric machine (Laboube one rotor per electric motor) and each transmission shaft (Laboube shaft 18) being connected to a different mechanical device (Laboube fig 1 shows the shaft 18 connecting to one compressor rotor) comprising a compression section (Laboube compressor rotor), wherein each transmission shaft is connected directly to the corresponding rotor without a flexible coupling and wherein the motor compressor operates without bearings holding the coupling between the transmission shaft and rotor (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Regarding claim 20, Laboube discloses an apparatus (fig 1) for a rotating electric machine (motor 12 and compressor 14, par 0002) the apparatus comprising: at least one rotor (motor rotor 12) … a second coupling (fig 1, the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer rotor 12)… the second coupling being configured to be secured to and put in direct contact, without a flexible coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005; it is clear that this embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009) with a first coupling (the flange of coupling 22 which is nearer the compressor) integral with a transmissions shaft (shaft 18; fig 1 depicts the flange of coupling 22 and shaft 18 toward the compressor connect as a single piece); wherein the second coupling and the first coupling are directly fixed together to form a rigid intermediate coupling (22), and the apparatus is configured to operate without bearings holding the intermediate coupling (fig 1 is expressly without a flexible coupling, par 0002-0005, thereby meeting applicant’s configuration requirements in Applicant’s spec par 0075; furthermore, it is clear that this prior art embodiment does not include a flexible coupling because the prior art proposes adding a first flexible coupling to address the rigid coupling’s disadvantages, par 0005-0009).
Laboube does not disclose a first compaction element, a second compaction element, at least one rotor with a non-through shaft, the at least one rotor comprising a cylindrical magnetic block wherein the cylindrical magnetic block is configured to be enclosed between first and second compaction elements together forming a rotor shaft, and the first compaction element comprising fixed and free ends, the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange at the fixed end, the fixing flange being configured to be put into fixed contact with the cylindrical magnetic block, wherein the fixing flange is configured to be directly secured to tie rods configured to compact the rotor, and wherein the second coupling has no contact with the tie rods. … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange,
Each tie rod having an end retained within the first compaction element, and wherein the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange.
Ahrens teaches a first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, See annotated drawing), a second compaction element (fig 1, a second of two stubs 6), at least one rotor (rotor c 2 ln 52) has a non-through shaft (shaft stubs 6, c 3 ln 33-35) and comprises a cylindrical magnetic block (the rotor comprises solid disks 1 and short-circuiting disks 4, c 3 ln 33-35; the plain meaning of a disk is a flat circular object; it is reasonable to infer that the stacking of several disks together to make the rotor would make the rotor a cylindrical shape) enclosed between the first compaction element (fig 1, a first of two stubs 6, with a respective short-circuiting disk 4) and the second compaction element (a second of two stubs 6 with a respective short-circuiting disk 4), the first compaction element and the second compaction element together forming a rotor shaft (shaft stubs 6 are on the axis of rotation and allow the rotor to rotate on their shared concentric axis, c 2 ln 22, c 3 ln 13), the first compaction element comprising fixed (fig 1, fixed end is fixed by tie rods 2 to the rotor disks 4) and free ends (fig 1, free end of shaft stub is axially outward from the flange), the first compaction element comprising a fixing flange at the fixed end (fig 1, flange part of shaft stub with the end face against short-circuiting disk 4, c 3 ln 35), the fixing flange being configured to be put into fixed contact with the cylindrical magnetic block (shaft stub 6 is pressed on the end face of disk 4, c 3 ln 35), … and wherein the fixing flange is configured to be directly secured to tie rods configured to compact the rotor (tie rods 2 pass through disks 4, c 3 ln 37; tie rods 2 press solid disks against one another, c 2 ln 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the electric machine rotor of Ahrens for the electric rotor of Laboube for the predictable result of providing a cost-effective rotor for a high speed electrical machine (See MPEP 2143).
It is further obvious, that when making the substitution of Ahrens electric rotor in for Laboube’s electric rotor of the motor, to connect Ahrens rotor to the Laboube’s transmission shaft using Laboube’s flanged coupling 22. When modifying Ahrens electric rotor to use with Laboube’s flanged coupling 22, the flange of 22 which is closer to Laboube’s rotor 12 would be removed from Laboube’s rotor 12 shaft and that flange would be added to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6.
As a result of the combination Laboube in view of Ahrens meets the limitation … the second coupling (Laboube’s flange of 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) at a free end of the first compaction element (Ahrens shaft stub 6 free end), and wherein the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22 on shaft stub 6) is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted (Ahrens tie rods 2 would not be connected to Laboube in view of Ahrens flange 22).
Furthermore, as the second coupling is attached to the free end of shaft stub 6, the tie rods which go through the fixing flange of the shaft stub would not be in contact with the second coupling, because the length of the shaft stub 6 is between those two separate flanges. Therefore, the combination meets the limitation, wherein the second coupling has no contact with the tie rods.
Timmermann teaches a transmission shaft (5, abstract) further comprises a threaded central pin (fig 5, stub 25, page 5) being held within a central threaded hole (40 is threaded and fixes the rod 25 in place, pg 5, bottom half) such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange (torque is transferred through the pinion 25, pg 2, 4-5),
Where fastening screws (19) have an end retained (countersunk) within the flange adapter (3) into the mounting hole (17),
Wherein the flange adapter (3) is a separate piece than the transmission shaft (5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft stub to compaction element of the rotor of Laboube in view of Ahrens with the pinion and threaded connection of Timmerman in order to ease the assembly and torque transfer (Timmerman, pg 5) which allows the pinon and adapter plate to be made of different materials which allows further optimization and reduction of costs (Timmerman, pg 4).
As a result, the combination meets the limitation “wherein the second coupling is separate from the fixing flange and is not configured to receive tie rods configured to keep the magnetic sheets compacted … wherein the transmission shaft further comprises a threaded central pin being held within a central threaded hole such that a mechanical torque transits through the transmission shaft and the fixing flange.”
It would be further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when combining Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmerman, to incorporate the wider mouth of the countersunk hole (17) capable of holding the end of a fastening screw (19) of Ahrens, which would result in the combination countersinking the tie rods (Ahrens, tie rods 2, fig 1, fig 2) of the combination. As a result, the combination meets the limitation each of the tie rods having an end retained within the first compaction element.
Regarding claim 22, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the motor compressor comprising the mechanical system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical system comprises a coupling device (Laboube, coupling 22) comprising the second coupling (Laboube in view of Ahrens, the flange of coupling 22 attached to the end of Ahrens shaft stub 6) and the first coupling (Laboube, the flange of coupling 22 that is closer to the compressor rotor), and comprises one rotor (Laboube in view of Ahrens, the rotor of Ahrens which substituted the motor rotor of Laboube) and two bearings (Laboube fig 2 shows bearings 24, 26 on either side of rotor 12, par 0002) located respectively at a free end of the one rotor (Laboube, fig 1, bearing 24) and at the transmission shaft (Laboube, fig 1, bearing 26 on shaft 18).
Laboube is silent as to the motor compressor does not comprise bearings holding the coupling device.
As per applicant’s disclosure, the motor compressor without bearings configured to support the intermediate coupling is a direct result of removing a flexible coupling from the shaft (See applicant’s par 0075-0077). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular bearings excluded by the claim language, are the bearings that are required in the case that a shaft includes a flexible coupling.
In contrast to Laboube’s fig 1 embodiment; Laboube discloses in a second embodiment in fig 2, a bearing supporting a flexible coupling, where the flexible coupling is in place of the rigid coupling 22 in fig 1 (fig 2, a bearing 42, between the flexible coupling and the motor rotor 38). Laboube fig 1 embodiment does not include a bearing in the location of bearing 42, and has therefore eliminated a bearing that would otherwise support the flexible coupling in fig 2, therefore meeting the claim language.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include in Laboube the bearings required to support a flexible coupling when no flexible coupling is present, as it is obvious to eliminate a structure when the function of that element is not needed (See MPEP 2144.04(A)). The rule is that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired ( In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347,CCPA 1965; Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired). In this case, the claimed lack of “bearings configured to support the intermediate coupling” is disclosed by applicant as directly related to the omission of a flexible coupling (See applicant’s par 0075-0077); since Laboube fig 1 does not disclose a flexible coupling, therefore it is obvious to omit any bearing related to support a non-existent flexible coupling. Therefore, Laboube makes obvious the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 1, wherein the fixing flange is configured to drive a compressor (Laboube, compressor, par 0002).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laboube (aka Pugnet) in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann in view of Fisch (US 2002/0037772).
Regarding claim 9, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 24. Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be fixed to each other with screws.
Fisch teaches an analogous motor compressor with a coupling (fig 3, coupling 4, par 0021) with a second coupling flange (4a) and a first coupling flange (4b) are configured to be fixed to each other with screws (screws 4h, 4i, par 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flanged coupling (fig 1, coupling 22) of Laboube by incorporating the details of the screws of Fisch for the expected result of forming a flanged connection. Connecting the flanges of Laboube coupling 22 with screws of Fisch is a known method of combination in the mechanical arts and known to a person of ordinary skill. The results of the combination are predictable because the screws of Fisch and the flanges of Laboube are used in the combination in the same manner that they function in its individual reference, which is to couple two shafts together for rotation.
Regarding claim 18, Laboube in view of Ahrens in view of Timmermann makes obvious the mechanical system of claim 24. Laboube in view of Ahrens is silent on wherein the second coupling flange and the first coupling flange are configured to be fixed to each other with screws.
Fisch teaches an analogous motor compressor with a coupling (fig 3, coupling 4, par 0021) with a second coupling flange (4a) and a first coupling flange (4b) are configured to be fixed to each other with screws (screws 4h, 4i, par 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flanged coupling (fig 1, coupling 22) of Laboube by incorporating the details of the screws of Fisch for the expected result of forming a flanged connection. Connecting the flanges of Laboube coupling 22 with screws of Fisch is a known method of combination in the mechanical arts and known to a person of ordinary skill. The results of the combination are predictable because the screws of Fisch and the flanges of Laboube are used in the combination in the same manner that they function in its individual reference, which is to couple two shafts together for rotation.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights