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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 30-37, 40, 42 & 45-46 are pending in the application. Claim 46 is withdrawn. Claims 1-29, 38-39, 41, 43-44 & 47-50 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 & 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36 should read --The multi-stage compressor unit according to claim 30, wherein at least one of
Claim 45 should read --A multi-stage compressor unit comprising:
a first compressor element and a second compressor element,
a first motor for driving the first compressor element,
a second motor for driving the second compressor element,
a first pressure sensor positioned at a first compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element,
a second pressure sensor positioned at a second compressed gas outlet of the second compressor element, and
a controller operatively coupled to the first motor, the second motor, the first pressure sensor, and the second pressure sensor,
wherein each of the first and second compressor elements are driven separately through a respective first gear-transmission and second gear-transmission,
wherein each of said first gear-transmission and said second gear-transmission comprise a driving gear respectively connected to said first motor or said second motor, and a driven gear connected to a shaft of a rotor of one of said first compressor element or said second compressor element,
wherein a ratio between a number of teeth of the driving gear and a number of teeth of the driven gear of either one of said first gear-transmission and said second gear- transmission is between two and six,
wherein the controller is configured to adjust a first rotational speed of the first motor based on a second pressure measured by the second pressure sensor and to adjust a second rotational speed of the second motor based on a first pressure measured by the first pressure sensor,
wherein the controller unit is configured to perform the following comparison calculations:
compare the second pressure measured at the second compressed gas outlet of a second compressor stage comprising the second compressor element with a first pressure reference corresponding to a required pressure at the second compressed gas outlet, the controller unit being further configured to adjust the first rotational speed of the first motor when the second pressure measured at the second compressed gas outlet is different from the required pressure at the second compressed gas outlet; and
compare the first pressure measured at the first compressed gas outlet of a first compressor stage comprising the first compressor element with a second pressure reference corresponding to a desired value of pressure at the cooling unit, the controller unit being further configured to adjust the second rotational speed of the second motor when the first pressure measured at the first compressed gas outlet is different from the desired value of pressure at the cooling unit.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“cooling unit” in Claims 30 & 45, where the generic placeholder is “unit”, the functional language is “cooling”, and sufficient modifying structure has not been provided; instant application Page 11 describes the cooling unit as “a first section of channels through which the compressed gas is flowing and a second section through which a coolant is 30flowing, the temperature of the coolant typically being much lower than that of the compressed gas”, providing sufficient modifying structure
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 30, 32 & 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen (U.S. Patent 6,802,696), in view of Kuwabara (JP2009228569 - see previously attached translation).
As to Claim 30, Verhaegen teaches a multi-stage compressor unit (the only figure provided) comprising:
at least a first compressor stage comprising a first compressor element (1) driven by a first motor (3) through a first gear-transmission (13) and a second compressor stage comprising a second compressor element (2) driven by a second motor (4) through a second gear-transmission (14),
wherein each of said first (13) and said second (13) gear-transmissions comprises;
a driving gear (13A/14B) connected to the first motor (3) or the second motor (4) respectively,
a driven gear (13B/14A) configured to be a multiplier (Column 3, Lines 46-60), wherein said driven gear (13B/14A) is connected to a shaft (see the figure below) of a rotor (screw; Column 3, Lines 24-25) of said first compressor element (1) or said second compressor element (2) respectively,
a first pressure sensor (23) positioned at (as shown in the only Verhaegen figure) a first compressed gas outlet (8) of the first compressor element (1),
a second pressure sensor (19) positioned at (as shown in the only Verhaegen figure) a second compressed gas outlet (11) of the second compressor element (2),
a controller unit (15) operatively coupled to (via 16/17/18/22/5/6) the first motor (3), the second motor (4), the first pressure sensor (23), and the second pressure sensor (19), and
a cooling unit (9/12) for cooling compressed gas exiting (via 10/11, as shown in the only figure provided) the first compressor element (1) or the second compressor element (2),
wherein the first motor (3) and the second motor (4) are adapted to drive the first compressor stage (comprised of compressor 1) and the second compressor stage (comprised of compressor 2) separately (as shown in the only figure),
wherein the controller unit (15) is configured to adjust a first rotational speed (Column 4, Lines 25-27) of the first motor (3) based on (Column 4, Lines 25-40, describes using both of the pressures measured from both pressure sensors 19/23 to control both motors 3/4; therefore, the first motor 3 speed is adjusted partially by the pressure from second pressure sensor 19, and the second motor 4 speed is adjusted partially by the pressure from the first pressure sensor 23) a second pressure measured by (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 19, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) the second pressure sensor (19) and to adjust a second rotational speed (Column 4, Lines 25-27) of the second motor (4) based on (Column 4, Lines 25-40, describes using both of the pressures measured from both pressure sensors 19/23 to control both motors 3/4; therefore, the first motor 3 speed is adjusted partially by the pressure from second pressure sensor 19, and the second motor 4 speed is adjusted partially by the pressure from the first pressure sensor 23) a first pressure measured by (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 23, as described in Column 4, Lines 37-40) the first pressure sensor (23),
wherein the controller unit (15) is configured to perform at least one of the following comparison calculations:
compare (Column 4, Lines 28-36) the second pressure measured (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 19, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) at the second compressed gas outlet (11) of the second compressor stage with a first pressure reference (the desired or requested output pressure, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) corresponding to a required pressure (the desired or requested output pressure, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) at the second compressed gas outlet (11), the controller unit (15) being further configured to adjust (Column 4, Lines 28-36, where each of the first and second rotational speeds are adjusted) the first rotational speed (Column 4, Lines 25-27) of the first motor (3) when the second pressure (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 19, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) measured at the second compressed gas outlet (11) is different from (any value outside the optimized efficiency for the required pressure, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) the required pressure (the desired or requested output pressure, as described in Column 4, Lines 28-36) at the second compressed gas outlet (11); and
compare the first pressure measured at the first compressed gas outlet of the first compressor stage with a second pressure reference corresponding to a desired value of pressure at the cooling unit, the controller unit being further configured to adjust the second rotational speed of the second motor when the first pressure measured at the first compressed gas outlet is different from the desired value of pressure at the cooling unit. The second comparison is not required since the first comparison is taught by Verhaegen.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Verhaegen Figure 1, Modified by Examiner
Verhaegen is silent on the gear sizes or ratios, so does not teach setting a gear ratio between the driven gear and the driving gear of each of said first gear-transmission and said second gear-transmission between two and six.
Kuwabara describes the use of gears to control an output rotational speed based on input rotational speed, and teaches the gear ratio between the driving gear (104) and the driven gear (102) is a result-effective-variable (Paragraph 0100) which determines the outlet pressure of the compressor (90). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set a gear ratio between the driven gear and the driving gear of each of said first gear-transmission and said second gear-transmission between two and six, as taught by Verhaegen, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 32, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, and continues to teach the controller unit (Verhaegen 15) is connected to (via Verhaegen 5/16) the first motor (Verhaegen 3) through a first communication link (Verhaegen 16) and to (via Verhaegen 6/17) the second motor (Verhaegen 4) through a second communication link (Verhaegen 17).
As to Claim 34, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, but is silent on the exact nominal power or nominal rpm of the motors, so does not explicitly teach at least one of said first motor and/or second motor is configured such that a product of nominal power, in kW, and a square of the first rotational speed, in rpm, is situated in a range between 0.0006x10E12 and 0.025x10E12.
Verhaegen continues to teach “the nominal capacity of the motors…is chosen equal to the maximum capacity which is necessary to drive the compressor element requiring the largest capacity (Column 3, Lines 61-64)” and “the designed rotational speed of the motors 3 and 4 is chosen between the maximum rotational speeds of the two compressor elements 1 and 2, and preferably in the middle between these rotational speeds (Column 3, Line 65 to Column 4, Line 3).” As such, Verhaegen teaches the power and rpm are result-effective variables which affect the capacity of the compressor (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the motors resulting in a product of nominal power, in kW, and a square of the first rotational speed, in rpm, is situated in a range between 0.0006x10E12 and 0.025x10E12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 35, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, but is silent on the exact maximum power or maximum rpm of the motors, so does not explicitly teach at least one of said first motor and/or second motor is configured such that a product of maximum power, in kW, and a square of a maximum first rotational speed and/or second rotational speed, in rpm, is situated in a range between 0.0006x10E12 and 0.025x10E12.
Verhaegen continues to teach “the nominal capacity of the motors…is chosen equal to the maximum capacity which is necessary to drive the compressor element requiring the largest capacity (Column 3, Lines 61-64)” and “the designed rotational speed of the motors 3 and 4 is chosen between the maximum rotational speeds of the two compressor elements 1 and 2, and preferably in the middle between these rotational speeds (Column 3, Line 65 to Column 4, Line 3).” As such, Verhaegen teaches the power and rpm are result-effective variables which affect the capacity of the compressor (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the motors resulting in a product of maximum power, in kW, and a square of a maximum first rotational speed and/or second rotational speed, in rpm, is situated in a range between 0.0006x10E12 and 0.025x10E12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen, in view of Kuwabara, further in view of Dinsdale (U.S. PGPub 2007/0189905), further in view of Tsuboi (JPH07158576A – see attached translation).
As to Claim 33, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 30-32, and continues to teach the controller unit (Verhaegen 15) is adapted to receive measurement data (the respective pressures measured from Verhaegen first and second pressure sensors 23/19, as described in Verhaegen Column 4, Lines 28-40) from (via Verhaegen 18/22) said first (Verhaegen 23) and second (Verhaegen 19) pressure sensors and/or first and second temperature sensors through a third communication link (Verhaegen 18/22).
Verhaegen is silent on the use of temperature sensors, so does not teach a first temperature sensor positioned at the first compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element and a second temperature sensor positioned at the second compressed gas outlet of the second compressor element.
Dinsdale describes a multi-stage compressor system, and teaches the use of pressure and temperature sensors throughout the system (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use temperature sensors, as taught by Dinsdale, in addition to the pressure sensors, as taught by Verhaegen, as modified, “so as to predict the speed change for one stage in conjunction with the speed of the other stages (Paragraph 0049)”.
Tsuboi describes a multi-stage compressor system, and teaches the use of a temperature sensor (26) positioned at each (as shown in Figure 7) of the first compressed gas outlet (the top of 11/15, as viewed in Figure 7) of the first compressor element (11/15) and the second compressed gas outlet (the top of 12/19, as viewed in Figure 7) of the second compressor element (12/19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to place the temperature sensors, as taught by Verhaegen, as modified, at the respective compressor gas outlets, as taught by Tsuboi, “to control the outlet temperature (Paragraph 0018)”
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen, in view of Kuwabara further in view of Nishimura (U.S. Patent 8,231,363).
As to Claim 36, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30. However, Verhaegen only contains a schematic view of the multi-stage compressor unit, so is silent on at least one of the first compressor element and the second compressor element, and at least one of the first motor and the second motor, are oriented transversally relative to a direction of a longest side of the multi-stage compressor unit.
Nishimura describes a multi-stage compressor unit, and teaches at least one of the first compressor element (2) and the second compressor element (3), and at least one of the first motor (4) and the second motor, are oriented transversally relative to (as shown in Figure 6; Column 2, Lines 62-65) a direction of a longest side (see Figure 6 below) of the multi-stage compressor unit (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishimura Figure 6, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use orientation, as taught by Nishimura, for the compressors and motors, as taught by Verhaegen, as modified, to reduce costs (Column 1, Line 66 to Column 2, Line 2 & Column 2, Lines 62-65).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen, in view of Kuwabara further in view of Nemit (U.S. PGPub 2014/0196490).
As to Claim 37, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30. However, Verhaegen only contains a schematic view of the multi-stage compressor unit, so is silent on a first cubicle comprising one or more frequency convertors, and a second cubicle comprising control electronics, said first and second cubicles being separated from one another.
Nemit describes an electric driven screw compressor unit, and teaches a first cubicle (52) comprising one or more frequency convertors (Paragraph 0030), and a second cubicle (40, as shown in Figure 2) comprising control electronics (Paragraph 0023), said first (52) and second (40) cubicles being separated from one another (as shown in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the electronics/converters/cubicles, as taught by Nemit, for the compressors and motors, as taught by Verhaegen, as modified, to convert and process signals, convert A/C voltage to D/C voltage, and provide protection for the electronics/converters.
Claims 40 & 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen, in view of Kuwabara further in view of Tsuru (U.S. Patent 5,401,149).
As to Claim 40, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, and continues to teach the first compressed gas outlet (Verhaegen 8) of said first compressor element (Verhaegen 1) or the second compressed gas outlet (Verhaegen 11) of the second compressor element (Verhaegen 2) is connected to (as shown in the only Verhaegen figure) the cooling unit (Verhaegen 9/12).
However, Verhaegen only contains a schematic view of the multi-stage compressor unit, so is silent on the respective compressor element is positioned on top of the cooling unit.
Tsuru describes a multi-stage compressor unit, and teaches the first compressor element (1) or the second compressor element (2), respectively, is positioned on top of (as shown in Figure 1) the cooling unit (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to orient and connect the compressors/motors/coolers, as taught by Verhaegen, as modified, in the manner taught by Tsuru, so that the cooling unit can be slidingly drawing out or removed in a direction Y at the time of the maintenance work (Column 8, Lines 54-58).
As to Claim 42, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 30 & 40, and continues to teach at least one of said first compressor element (Verhaegen 1) or second compressor element (Verhaegen 2) is respectively connected to the first motor (Verhaegen 3) or the second motor (Verhaegen 4) by means of a second connection part (see the Verhaegen figure in the Claim 30 rejection above), said second connection part (see the Verhaegen figure in the Claim 30 rejection above) being configured to support (one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the second connection shown in the figure in Claim 30 above as a shaft leading into the respective gear-transmissions from the respective motors; since the second connections are shaft, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the shafts have a structure which is capable of supporting the compressors in combination with the gear-transmissions and compressor shafts) the first compressor element (Verhaegen 1) or the second compressor element (Verhaegen 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 45 would be allowable once the formal requirements described above are overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections for Claim 30, Applicant argues Verhaegen, as modified, does not teach the controller configured to teach either of the claimed comparisons. Examiner disagrees.
As described in the rejection above, Verhaegen teaches the first comparison.
Claim 45 is indicated as allowable, since Claim 45 requires both comparisons be performed, and Verhaegen, as modified, does not teach both comparisons.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights