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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 30-37, 40, 42 & 45-50 are pending in the application. Claims 46-49 are withdrawn. Claims 1-29, 38, 39, 41, 43 & 44 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 42 & 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 should read --The multi-stage compressor unit according to claim 41, wherein at least one of said first compressor element or second compressor element is respectively connected to the the second motor by means of a second connection part, said second connection part being configured to support the first compressor element or the second compressor element.—
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
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
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.--
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 31 & 40, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 50, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims at least one pressure reference. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe more than two pressure references. The instant application describes a first pressure reference and a second pressure reference. However, the phrase allows for more than two pressure references, broadening the initial disclosure. As such, the term is considered new matter.
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 30-37, 40, 42, 45 & 50 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.
As to Claim 30, the phrase “a separate second gear-transmission”, in Lines 5-6, is indefinite. It is not clear what the second gear-transmission is separate from. For the purpose of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as a second gear-transmission separate from the first gear-transmission.
The limitation “a driven gear configured to be a multiplier, each of said driven gear being connected to a shaft of a rotor of said first compressor element or said second compressor element respectively”, in Lines 10-12, is indefinite. Only one driven gear was defined, so it is not clear what is meant by “each of said driven gear”, because the phrase implies multiple driven gears. For the purpose of examination, the term “a driven gear” will be interpreted as a first and second driven gear. Applicant should also take into consideration Lines 25-26 when amending this limitation.
The limitation “the controller is configured to adjust rotational speed of the first motor based on pressure measured by the second pressure sensor and to adjust rotational speed of the second motor based on pressure measured by the first pressure sensor”, in Lines 28-30, should read –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.
The phrase “to adjust rotational speed of the first motor”, in Line 28, should read --to adjust a first rotational speed of the first motor.
The phrase “to adjust rotational speed of the second motor”, in Lines 29-30, should read --to adjust a second rotational speed of the second motor.
As to Claim 32, the term “a controller unit” is indefinite. A controller was defined in Claim 30, Line 20. As such, it is not clear if the controller unit of Claim 32 is the same structure as the controller of Claim 30, or if the respective structures are different structures. For the purpose of examination, the respective structures will be interpreted as the same controller.
As to Claim 34, the term “the product” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the nominal power” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the square” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the nominal speed” is indefinite. It is not clear if the nominal speed in Claim 34 is the same speed as either one of the speeds defined in Claim 30, or if the speed in Claim 34 is a different speed than either one of the speeds defined in Claim 30. If the speed in Claim 34 is the same speed as one of the speeds in Claim 30, it is not clear which speed in Claim 30 is the same as the speed in Claim 34. For the purpose of examination, the speed in Claim 34 will be interpreted as either of the speeds in Claim 30.
As to Claim 35, the term “the product” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the maximum power” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the square” lacks antecedent basis.
The term “the maximum speed” is indefinite. It is not clear if the maximum speed in Claim 35 is the same speed as either one of the speeds defined in Claim 30, or if the speed in Claim 35 is a different speed than either one of the speeds defined in Claim 30. If the speed in Claim 35 is the same speed as one of the speeds in Claim 30, it is not clear which speed in Claim 30 is the same as the speed in Claim 35. For the purpose of examination, the speed in Claim 35 will be interpreted as either of the speeds in Claim 30.
As to Claim 36, the phrase “at least one of said compressor elements” should read –at least one of the first compressor element and the second compressor element.
The phrase “the motor driving the at least one compressor element” is indefinite. It is not clear which motor –the first or second motor—is being referenced, and it is not clear which compressor element –the first or second compressor element—is being referenced. The phrase “the at least one compressor element” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the reference to the motor can be either of the first or second motors, and the reference to the compressor element can be either of the first or second compressor elements.
The term “the direction” lacks antecedent basis.
As to Claim 40, the term “a compressed gas outlet of said first compressor element”, in Line 2, is indefinite. A compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element was defined in Claim 30. As such, it is not clear if the compressed gas outlet of Claim 40 is the same structure as the first compressed outlet of Claim 30, or if the respective outlets are different. For the purpose of examination, the respective outlets will be interpreted as the same outlet.
The term “a compressed gas outlet of said second compressor element”, in Lines 2-3, is indefinite. A compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element was defined in Claim 30. As such, it is not clear if the compressed gas outlet of Claim 40 is the same structure as the second compressed outlet of Claim 30, or if the respective outlets are different. For the purpose of examination, the respective outlets will be interpreted as the same outlet.
The phrase “the respective compressor element” lacks antecedent basis, and it is not clear which compressor element is being referenced by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as either of the first or second compressor elements.
As to Claim 50, the term “the measure pressure” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite. Multiple pressures were measured in Claim 30, so it is not clear which pressure is being referenced in Claim 50. For the purpose of examination, the measured pressure of Claim 50 will be interpreted as either of the measured pressures of Claim 30.
The phrase “the rotational speed of the respective motor” is indefinite. Since it is not clear which measured pressure is being referenced, it also is not clear which speed or motor is being referenced. Even if the measured pressure was properly referenced, it still would not be clear which rotational speed or motor is being referenced, since none of Claim 50 refers back to any step in Claim 30. For the purpose of examination, the rotational speed and motor of Claim 50 will be interpreted as either of the rotational speeds or motors of Claim 30.
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 & 50 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 separate 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), each of said driven gear (13B/14A) being 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), and
a controller (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),
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 (15) is configured to adjust 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) 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 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) pressure measured by (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 23, as described in Column 4, Lines 37-40) the first pressure sensor (23).
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 31, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, and continues to teach a cooling unit (Verhaegen 9/12) for cooling a compressed gas exiting (via Verhaegen 8) the first compressor element (Verhaegen 1) or the second compressor element (Verhaegen 2).
As to Claim 32, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 30 & 31, and continues to teach a controller unit (Verhaegen 15) 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 the product of the nominal power, in kW, and the square of the nominal 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 the product of the nominal power, in kW, and the square of the nominal 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 motors is configured such that the product of the maximum power, in kW, and the square of the maximum 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 the product of the maximum power, in kW, and the square of the maximum 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 50, Verhaegen, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, and continues to teach the controller (Verhaegen 15) stores at least one pressure reference (the Verhaegen pressure ratio in the Verhaegen databank, as described in Verhaegen Column 2, Lines 59-62) and is configured to compare the measured pressure (the Verhaegen measured pressure of either of Verhaegen pressure sensors 19/23, as described in Verhaegen Column 4, Lines 28-36) with (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Verhaegen measured pressure –as described in Verhaegen Column 2, Lines 54-58—is compared to the Verhaegen databank reference, as described in Verhaegen Column 3, Lines 1-4, in order to arrive at the correct Verhaegen speed ratio) the at least one pressure reference (the Verhaegen pressure ratio in the Verhaegen databank, as described in Verhaegen Column 2, Lines 59-62) and adjust the rotational speed (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Verhaegen rotational speed of at least one of the Verhaegen first and second motors is adjusted to arrive at the Verhaegen speed ratio, as described in Verhaegen Column 2, Lines 59-62) of the respective motor (Verhaegen 3/4) when the measured pressure (the Verhaegen measured pressure of either of Verhaegen pressure sensors 19/23, as described in Verhaegen Column 4, Lines 28-36) deviates from (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the speed adjustment Verhaegen Column 2, Line 46, to Column 3, Line 4, would only be done when the pressure reference deviates from the measured reference, since the Verhaegen speed adjustment is done to maintain an optimized speed) the at least one pressure reference (the Verhaegen pressure ratio in the Verhaegen databank, as described in Verhaegen Column 2, Lines 59-62).
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 a compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element and a second temperature sensor positioned at the 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)”.
Verhaegen is silent on the use of temperature sensors, so does not teach a first temperature sensor positioned at a compressed gas outlet of the first compressor element and a second temperature sensor positioned at the compressed gas outlet of the second compressor element.
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 compressed gas outlet (the top of 11/15, as viewed in Figure 7) of the first compressor element (11/15) and the 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 said compressor elements and the motor driving the at least one compressor element are oriented transversally relative to the direction of a longest side of the multi-stage compressor unit.
Nishimura describes a multi-stage compressor unit, and teaches at least one of said compressor elements (2/3) and the motor (4) driving (via 5) the at least one compressor element (2/3) are oriented transversally relative to (as shown in Figure 6; Column 2, Lines 62-65) the direction of a longest side (see Figure 6 below) 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 compressed gas outlet (Verhaegen 8) of said first compressor element (Verhaegen 1) or a compressed gas outlet (Verhaegen 11) of the second compressor element (Verhaegen 2) is connected to (as shown in the only Verhaegen figure) a 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 respective compressor element (1/2) 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 connected to the respective first motor (Verhaegen 3) or 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 second compressor element (Verhaegen 2).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhaegen, in view of Kuwabara, as evidenced by wikihow.com (see 4 Easy Ways to Determine Gear Ratio (with Pictures) pdf from wikihow.com/Determine-Gear-Ratio; note the published date is from 10/07/2017).
As to Claim 45, Verhaegen teaches a multi-stage compressor unit (the only figure provided) comprising:
a first compressor element (1) and a second compressor element (2),
a first motor (3) for driving the first compressor element (1),
a second motor (4) for driving the second compressor element (2),
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), and
a controller (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),
wherein each of the first (1) and second (2) compressor elements driven separately (as shown in the only figure) through a respective first gear-transmission (13) and second gear-transmission (14),
wherein each of said first gear-transmission (13) and said second gear-transmission (14) comprising a driving gear (13A/14B) connected to (as shown in the only figure) a respective motor of said first motor (3) or said second motor (4), and a driven gear (13B/14A) being connected to a shaft (see the Verhaegen figure in the Claim 30 rejection above) of a rotor (screw; Column 3, Lines 24-25) of one of said first compressor element (1) or said second compressor element (2),
wherein the controller (15) is configured to adjust 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) 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 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) pressure measured by (the measured pressure of pressure sensor 23, as described in Column 4, Lines 37-40) the first pressure sensor (23).
Verhaegen is silent on the gear sizes or ratios, so does not teach 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 situated 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)).
The website wikihow.com describes one of the ways to determine a gear ratio is to determine the ratio of the teeth between the driving gear and the teeth of the driven gear. See steps 1-4 of the “Two Gears” section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set a teeth ratio between the driving gear and the driven gear of either one 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections for Claims 30 & 45, Applicant argues Verhaegen, as modified, does not teach “the controller is configured to adjust rotational speed of the first motor based on pressure measured by the second pressure sensor and to adjust rotational speed of the second motor based on pressure measured by the first pressure sensor.” Examiner disagrees.
As described in both rejections above, Verhaegen teaches the rotational speed of both motors may rely on the respected pressure measurements from each of the first and second pressure sensors. As such, Verhaegen teaches the first motor speed is changed based on the second pressure measurement, and the second motor speed is changed based on the first pressure measurement.
Regarding the 103 rejections for new dependent Claim 50, Applicant argues none of the cited references teach the new claim. Examiner disagrees for the reasons provided in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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