DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haseley US 20070224058 in view of Ursan US 20050180864.
Haseley discloses:
1. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A method for operating a linear motor compressor (see e.g. the title) comprising an electric linear motor (122, 182), a cylinder (50) and a linearly movable free piston arrangement with a piston (58), wherein the cylinder and the piston form a compression chamber (62), wherein the free piston arrangement is driven directly by the linear motor and is moved back and forth along a stroke path between a top dead center and a bottom dead center (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026), wherein a fluid is supplied to the compression chamber from the outside (via 78), wherein the supplied fluid is compressed or expanded in the compression chamber and is subsequently discharged to the outside again (via 82), wherein at least one state variable is preset for the linear motor compressor (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026), and wherein the free piston arrangement, starting from the bottom dead center during a compression phase up to the opening point of the outlet valve and subsequently during an ejection phase up to the closing point of the outlet valve, is driven with a predetermined state variable, a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026); wherein the free piston arrangement, starting from the top dead center during a relaxation phase (the phase where the piston stops to reverse direction) up to the opening point of the inlet valve and subsequently during an intake phase up to the closing point of the inlet valve, is driven with a predetermined state variable (see e.g. desired velocity and/or desired stroke in 0026), a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026).
Haseley does not disclose in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase.
Ursan discloses the control device controls the free piston arrangement starting from the bottom dead center (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at t1) during a compression phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 from t1 to t2 as in “Compression of the gas takes place between t1 and t2” in 0105) up to the opening point of the outlet valve (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at t2 as in “When gas is being discharged from the compressor, piston velocity can be controlled to be substantially constant until near the end of the piston stroke when piston velocity can be further reduced until the piston eventually stops at the end of the compression stroke” in 0033 and “Still with reference to FIG. 5, at t2, the discharge pressure is reached, and from t2 to t3 gas pressure is substantially constant as gas is discharged from the cylinder. Between t2 and t3 piston velocity is also substantially constant, because constant gas pressure results in constant resistance to piston movement” in 0106) and subsequently during an ejection phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 from t2 to t3, and “Between t2 and t3 piston velocity is also substantially constant, because constant gas pressure results in constant resistance to piston movement” in 0106) up to the closing point of the outlet valve (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at the end of the discharge stroke at TDC at t3 where the discharge valve closes as the piston 58 stops to reverse direction) with a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. “Piston velocity can be controlled to follow a predetermined speed profile during the compression stroke.” in 0032) in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 wherein the mean speed in from t1 to t2 is greater than the mean speed from t2 to t3 as in “During the discharge portion of the compression stroke, piston velocity is preferably kept substantially constant. Piston velocity during the discharge portion of the piston stroke is preferably equal to or less than piston velocity at the end of the second portion of the compression stroke” in 0032).
Additionally, the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines rate of expansion/suction/compression/discharge of the gas in the compression chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the compressor of Haseley in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that the applicant has not provided unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range (i.e. the entire range of values for the mean velocity during the ejection phase in which it is higher than mean velocity during the compression phase).
Additionally, the use of a mean velocity during the compression phase that is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) given a person of ordinary skill in the art only has three available options: the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than, lower than, or the same as the mean velocity during the ejection phase. Any of these three options would produce the predictable result of compressing and discharging the gas in the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear compressor of Haseley to operate such that that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase as taught by Ursan to gain the benefit of e.g. compressing and discharging the gas in the compression chamber at a desired rate and/or e.g. achieving a desired amount of heat dissipation during the stroke as taught by Ursan in 0033.
Haseley as modified above does not disclose in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase.
However, the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines rate of expansion/suction/compression/discharge of the gas in the compression chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that the applicant has not provided unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range (i.e. the entire range of values for the mean velocity during the expansion phase in which it is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase).
Additionally, the use of a mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) given a person of ordinary skill in the art only has three available options: the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than, lower than, or the same as the mean velocity during the suction phase. Any of these three options would produce the predictable result of creating a pressure vacuum and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase to gain the benefit of creating a pressure vacuum and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Haseley as modified above discloses (all references to Haseley unless noted otherwise):
3. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the exhaust valve (see e.g. speed in the region of t2 in Fig 5) is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the compression phase (see e.g. speed between t1 and t2 in e.g. Fig 5) (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 wherein the mean speed in from t1 to t2 is greater than the mean speed from t2 to t3 as in “During the discharge portion of the compression stroke, piston velocity is preferably kept substantially constant. Piston velocity during the discharge portion of the piston stroke is preferably equal to or less than piston velocity at the end of the second portion of the compression stroke” in 0032).
Regarding claim 4, Haseley does not disclose wherein the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the expansion phase.
However, the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines rate of expansion/suction/compression/discharge of the gas in the compression chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the expansion phase, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that the applicant has not provided unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range (i.e. the entire range of values for the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve for which it is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the expansion phase).
Additionally, the use of a the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the expansion phase is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) given a person of ordinary skill in the art only has three available options: the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve is reduced, held the same, or raised in relation to the mean velocity during the expansion phase. Any of these three options would produce the predictable result of creating a pressure vacuum and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear compressor of Haseley as modified above such that in such a way that the velocity of the free piston arrangement in the region of the opening point of the inlet valve is reduced to a velocity lower than the mean velocity during the expansion phase to gain the benefit of creating a pressure vacuum and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
5. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 3, wherein the free piston arrangement is accelerated again after at least one of the opening point of the exhaust valve, and/or that the free piston arrangement is accelerated again after the opening point of the inlet valve (the piston is accelerated at TDC and BDC during each stroke and any strokes occurring thereafter which fully meets the limitations of the claim as these accelerations occur and reoccur after any particular opening point of the exhaust valve or any particular opening point of the inlet valve).
8. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein a stroke travel point and, assigned to this, a setpoint velocity of the free piston arrangement are specified as the state variable (see e.g. “Piston velocity can be controlled to follow a predetermined speed profile during the compression stroke” in 0032, and “During the discharge portion of the compression stroke, piston velocity is preferably kept substantially constant” in 0032).
9. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim1, wherein a nominal profile to be maintained along at least a partial section of the stroke path (see e.g. power in Fig 5; and “Piston velocity can be controlled to follow a predetermined speed profile during the compression stroke” in 0032, and speed in Fig 5 from t2 to t3 and “During the discharge portion of the compression stroke, piston velocity is preferably kept substantially constant”.)
10. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) Method The method according to claim 9, wherein a setpoint profile to be maintained during a stroke time required for the entire stroke path is specified as the state variable [see e.g. “desired stroke (length per stroke)” in 0026 of Haseley, and see constant power in 0036 of Ursan].
11. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein the linear motor compressor comprises a first 62 and a second 66 compression chamber which are operated in opposite directions by the free piston arrangement (see e.g. Fig 1).
12. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein a velocity-displacement curve between at least one of the bottom dead center and the top dead center and/or the top dead center and the bottom dead center, according to which velocity-displacement curve the free piston arrangement is moved back and forth, is predetermined as a state variable (see e.g. “Piston velocity can be controlled to follow a predetermined speed profile during the compression stroke” in 0032).
13. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein the free piston arrangement, starting from the bottom dead center, is moved during a compression phase (see e.g. Fig 5 from t1 to t2), up to the opening point of the exhaust valve (see e.g. Fig 5 at t2), with a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. speed in Fig 5), in such a way that the linear motor has to deliver a constant or substantially constant power as a function of time (As best understood, see the power in Fig 5 wherein the power is held constant after initial start until t2 which is considered substantially constant; see also constant power in 0036 of Ursan.).
14. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined state variable, a predetermined velocity-displacement curve, at least in the range of one of the following points: opening point of the exhaust valve, closing point of the exhaust valve, opening point of the inlet valve, closing point of the inlet valve, has a reduced velocity compared to the rest of the velocity path, so that the outlet or inlet valve is moved at reduced velocity [The velocity of the piston is necessarily zero at TDC and BDC corresponding to the range of the closing point of the exhaust valve and the closing point of the inlet valve, respectively, and thus has a reduced velocity compared to the rest of the velocity path (which is not zero), so that the outlet or inlet valve is moved at reduced velocity. Regarding the references to the opening points, it is unclear what is being claimed as the velocity is zero at TDC and BDC so the velocity would be greater at the opening points.].
16. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method according to claim 1, wherein the volume delivered by the linear motor compressor is changed by changing the maximum stroke of the linear motor or specifically by changing at least one of the location of the top dead center and/or the location of the bottom dead center (see e.g. “desired stroke (length per stroke) at which the controller 18 will operator the compressor 10 and the piston 58” in 0026).
Haseley discloses:
19. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A linear motor compressor (see e.g. Fig 1) comprising at least one electric linear motor (122, 182), a cylinder (50) and a linearly movable free piston arrangement with at least one piston (58), the cylinder and the piston forming at least one compression chamber (62), the free piston arrangement being driven directly by the linear motor (see e.g. 0020), the compression chamber (5) being connected to the outside in a fluid-conducting manner via an outlet valve (82) and an inlet valve (78), a control device (18) controlling the linear motor in such a manner that the free piston arrangement is moved back and forth between a top dead center and a bottom dead center (see e.g. stroke throughout including 0026) with a predetermined state variable (see e.g. desired velocity and/or desired stroke in 0026), wherein the control device controls the free piston arrangement starting from the bottom dead center during a compression phase up to the opening point of the outlet valve and subsequently during an ejection phase up to the closing point of the outlet valve with a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026 and “an operator interface for inputting a desired stroke and velocity of the piston relative to the housing, wherein the controller operates the maintain the piston at the desired stroke and velocity based upon measured distance and velocity between the sensor and the piston” in claim 30).
Haseley does not disclose in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase.
Ursan discloses the control device controls the free piston arrangement starting from the bottom dead center (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at t1) during a compression phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 from t1 to t3 as in “Compression of the gas takes place between t1 and t2” in 0105) up to the opening point of the outlet valve (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at t2 as in “When gas is being discharged from the compressor, piston velocity can be controlled to be substantially constant until near the end of the piston stroke when piston velocity can be further reduced until the piston eventually stops at the end of the compression stroke” in 0033 and “Still with reference to FIG. 5, at t2, the discharge pressure is reached, and from t2 to t3 gas pressure is substantially constant as gas is discharged from the cylinder. Between t2 and t3 piston velocity is also substantially constant, because constant gas pressure results in constant resistance to piston movement” in 0106) and subsequently during an ejection phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 from t2 to t3, and “Between t2 and t3 piston velocity is also substantially constant, because constant gas pressure results in constant resistance to piston movement” in 0106) up to the closing point of the outlet valve (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 at t3) with a predetermined velocity-displacement curve (see e.g. “Piston velocity can be controlled to follow a predetermined speed profile during the compression stroke.” in 0032) in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase (see e.g. speed in Fig 5 wherein the mean speed in from t1 to t2 is greater than the mean speed from t2 to t3 as in “During the discharge portion of the compression stroke, piston velocity is preferably kept substantially constant. Piston velocity during the discharge portion of the piston stroke is preferably equal to or less than piston velocity at the end of the second portion of the compression stroke” in 0032).
Additionally, the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines rate of expansion/suction/compression/discharge of the gas in the compression chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that the applicant has not provided unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range (i.e. the entire range of values for the mean velocity during the ejection phase in which it is higher than mean velocity during the compression phase).
Additionally, the use of a mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) given a person of ordinary skill in the art only has three available options: the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than, lower than or the same as the mean velocity during the ejection phase. Any of these three options would produce the predictable result of compressing and discharging the gas in the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear compressor of Haseley to operate such that that the mean velocity during the compression phase is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase as taught by Ursan to gain the benefit of compressing and discharging the gas in the compression chamber at a desired rate and/or achieving a desired amount of heat dissipation as taught by Ursan in 0033.
Haseley as modified above does not disclose in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase.
However, the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines rate of expansion/suction/compression/discharge of the gas in the compression chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 244.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that the applicant has not provided unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range (i.e. the entire range of values for the mean velocity during the expansion phase in which it is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase).
Additionally, the use of a mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase is obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (E) given a person of ordinary skill in the art only has three available options: the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than, lower than, or the same as the mean velocity during the suction phase. Any of these three options would produce the predictable result of creating a pressure differential and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear compressor of Haseley as modified above in such a way that the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher than the mean velocity during the intake phase to gain the benefit of creating a pressure vacuum (i.e. differential) and drawing the gas into the compression chamber at a desired rate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haseley US 20070224058 in view of Ursan US 20050180864 in further view of Barito US 20140072461.
Regarding claim 15, Haseley as modified above does not disclose wherein the linear motor exerts a positive force on the free piston arrangement acting in the direction towards the bottom dead center during the entire expansion phase and preferably during the expansion phase and the intake phase.
Barito discloses wherein the linear motor exerts a positive force on the free piston arrangement acting in the direction towards the bottom dead center during the entire expansion phase and preferably during the expansion phase and the intake phase (see e.g. Fig 10 and 0047-0048).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear motor of Haseley as modified above to operate the linear motor to exert a positive force on the free piston arrangement acting in the direction towards the bottom dead center during the entire expansion phase as taught by Barito to gain the benefit of utilizing a known force profile for the intake stroke of a linear compressor.
Claim(s) 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haseley US 20070224058 in view of Ursan US 20050180864 in further view of Colborn US 20220389920.
Haseley as modified above discloses:
Regarding claim 17, Haseley as modified above does not disclose wherein the free piston arrangement is braked at least in sections during the reciprocating movement between the top dead center and the bottom dead center by operating the linear motor as a generator.
Colborn discloses wherein the free piston arrangement is braked at least in sections during the reciprocating movement between the top dead center and the bottom dead center by operating the linear motor as a generator (see e.g. 0065).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear motor of Haseley as modified above to operate as a generator as taught by Colborn to gain the benefit of “generated electrical energy which would have otherwise been dissipated as impact energy and wear or heat energy in the shunted coils is recaptured (e.g., into batteries) for later use (e.g., to perform pumping work)” as taught by Colborn in 0065.
Haseley as modified above discloses:
20. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The linear motor compressor according to claim 19, wherein said linear motor is operable as a motor, and that said drive device drives said linear motor such that said free piston assembly is driven with a predetermined velocity-displacement curve when moving between a top dead center and a bottom dead center (see e.g. desired velocity and desired stroke in 0026 and “an operator interface for inputting a desired stroke and velocity of the piston relative to the housing, wherein the controller operates the maintain the piston at the desired stroke and velocity based upon measured distance and velocity between the sensor and the piston” in claim 30).
Haseley does not disclose the linear motor is operable as a generator.
Colborn discloses a linear motor for a pumping device wherein the linear motor is operable as a generator (see e.g. 0065).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the linear motor of Haseley as modified above to operate as a generator as taught by Colborn to gain the benefit of “generated electrical energy which would have otherwise been dissipated as impact energy and wear or heat energy in the shunted coils is recaptured (e.g., into batteries) for later use (e.g., to perform pumping work)” as taught by Colborn in 0065.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 6-7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2019 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Most importantly, Ursan only teaches the adaptation of the velocity in the compression and discharge phase rather than the expansion and suction phase. Consequently, Haseley in combination with Ursan does not disclose the general conditions required to discover a working range by applying routine skill. Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would, in view of Ursan, see no reason to apply the same velocity reduction in an expansion and suction phase of the compressor, where the gas expansion cools the components down.
Examiner’s reply:
Every piston pump/compressor ever operated inherently requires the piston to be moved back and forth while varying the speed of the piston to stop at TDC and BDC during an intake stroke and a compression stroke of the piston (see e.g. “A compressor cycle is defined by the completion of an intake stroke and a compression stroke.” in 0026 of Ursan). The speed of the piston through the stroke inherently determines intake rate and discharge rate of the pumped fluid (see e.g. “increasing compressor speed to achieve a higher gas flow rate” in 0109 of Ursan). As per Wikipedia and Tackett et al. (see below), the delivery rate of a piston pump is proportional to the speed of the pump (i.e. the speed of the piston acting on the fluid) wherein any fluid delivered in the delivery portion of the stroke must be drawn in during the corresponding intake portion of the stroke:
PNG
media_image1.png
339
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piston_pump
PNG
media_image2.png
340
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
778
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Haseley discloses the speed of the compressor piston is variable and selectable by the user as desired (see e.g. 0026), and Ursan discloses “The piston speed profile can be selected in response to a measured operating parameter. For example, the selected speed profile can be responsive to desired mass flow rate, inlet gas pressure, desired gas pressure, and desired compression ratio” (see e.g. 0034 of Ursan). Thus, given selection of a speed profile of the piston of a linear compressor is required to operate the device and given the speed of the piston is a result effective variable that determines the rate of suction/discharge of the fluid, Haseley in combination with Ursan discloses the general conditions of the claim.
Applicant argues:
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05 II B, "a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because 'obvious to try' is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding" (Applicant emphasis added). As neither Haseley nor Ursan disclose that lowering the velocity during the ejection/suction-phase improves efficiency due to reduced flow resistance, it would not have been obvious to try for person of ordinary skill.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, as detailed above, the speed of the piston in a linear compressor determined the intake/delivery rate of fluid and is thus a recognized result effective variable. Applicant is asked to explain how the intake/delivery rate of the fluid of a linear compressor is determined if it is not the speed of the piston? Also, is applicant arguing the speed of a piston in a linear compressor has no recognizable result whatsoever? Applicant is asked for a full, logical explanation.
Secondly, applicant’s assertion that obvious to try not a valid rationale is a mischaracterization of MPEP 2144.05 II B which clearly states (emphasis added): “However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
As detailed above, in order to operate a linear compressor, a person of ordinary skill in the art there is a design need/requirement that the piston speed profile be selected. And when faced with selecting this required piston speed profile, one of ordinary skill in the art has ONLY three possible choices: the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher, lower, or the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the choice of the mean velocity during the expansion phase being the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase is merely theoretical and not practically achievable as the two mean velocities would not be exactly the same (some measurable variance in practice) even if attempted. Thus, practically speaking a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mean velocity during the expansion phase would be higher or lower than the mean velocity during the intake phase meaning there are only really two practical options for a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve. Thus, given there is only three theoretical choices (and two practical choices) for a person of ordinary skill in the art, a finding of obviousness is supported as per MPEP 2143 I (E) and MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Thirdly, there is no requirement that the references “disclose that lowering the velocity during the ejection/suction-phase improves efficiency due to reduced flow resistance”. MPEP 2144 IV states: “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."
Applicant argues:
Even if the person of ordinary skill were to derive from Ursan that the velocity during expansion and suction can be modified, the person of ordinary skill would choose to expand the gas more slowly to avoid extreme temperatures in the compression chamber.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, is applicant arguing that the speed of a linear compressor piston cannot be modified? Does every linear compressor ever made necessarily operate in a manner where the speed profile cannot be changed? Applicant is asked for a full, logical explanation.
As evidenced above, the speed profile of a linear compressor is user selectable (see e.g. 0026 of Haseley and 0034 of Ursan).
Secondly, applicant assertion that “the person of ordinary skill would choose to expand the gas more slowly to avoid extreme temperatures in the compression chamber” is merely a conclusory statement with no supporting evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the assertion is given little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Thirdly, in 0085-0086 Ursan discloses “When the piston reaches the end of the compression stroke, the volume of the compression chamber at that point defines a "dead space". The gas retained in the dead space is compressed to a high pressure but is not expelled in the compression stroke. Reciprocating piston compressors normally have a dead space, however, the larger the ratio of dead space to compression chamber volume, the lower the efficiency of the compressor. When the piston reverses direction, the retained pressurized gas expands and fills the growing volume of the compression chamber. For the initial portion of the intake stroke, the retained gas causes the pressure within the compression cylinder to remain greater than the pressure in inlet pipe 30, preventing new gas from entering. A smaller dead space means more new gas can be drawn in from inlet pipe 30 during each intake stroke, resulting in higher compressor efficiency.” Work would be required to be done I order to slow down the natural expansion of the high pressure gas remaining after the conclusion of the compression stroke which would decrease the energy efficiency of the compressor. Also, contrary to applicant assertion, a relatively rapid adiabatic expansion of the high pressure gas remaining after the conclusion of the compression stroke would decrease the temperature of the gas as the energy of the gas in converted into work to move the piston as evidenced by Wikipedia (see below). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that allowing the retained high pressure gas to expand relatively rapidly would perform work on the piston to move the piston along the intake stroke to save energy and cause the expanding gas to cool the cylinder. Thus, applicant’s assertion is not only incorrect but also it provides even more evidence that the one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow a relatively rapid expansion phase in order to “avoid extreme temperatures in the compression chamber” by allowing a relatively rapid adiabatic expansion of the high pressure gas retained after completion of the compression stroke to cool the compression chamber as the temperature of the fluid drops.
PNG
media_image4.png
215
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Applicant argues:
Further there would be no incentive for the person of ordinary skill to lower the velocity during the suction phase.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, applicant assertion that “there would be no incentive for the person of ordinary skill to lower the velocity during the suction phase” is merely a conclusory statement with no supporting evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the assertion is given little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Secondly, as detailed immediately above applicant’s assertion is not only incorrect but also it provides even more evidence that the one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow a relatively rapid expansion phase in order to “avoid extreme temperatures in the compression chamber” by allowing a relatively rapid adiabatic expansion of the high pressure gas retained after completion of the compression stroke and thereby lowering the temperature of the retained gas.
Thirdly, a person or ordinary skill in the art would understand that a lower relative the velocity of the piston during the suction phase as compared to the relatively rapid velocity in the expansion phase would decrease power requirements for driving the piston as maintain this rapid expansion would require relative high power. And as detailed above, acting against the retained high pressure gas to slow down the piston during the expansion phase would likewise require more energy and thus be less efficient.
Applicant argues:
Furthermore, the Examiner indicated (Office Action pg. 6) that the use of a mean velocity during the compression phrase that is higher than the mean velocity during the ejection phase is obvious over Haseley in view of Ursan, as a person of ordinary skill art only has three available options of adapting the velocity of the expansion phase and the suction phase.
As argued above, the person of ordinary skill would not derive from Ursan that the velocity in the expansion and/or suction phase can or should be modified, therefore not being confronted with the three options mentioned.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, is applicant arguing that the speed of a linear compressor piston cannot be modified? Does every linear compressor ever made necessarily operate in a manner where the speed profile cannot be changed? Applicant is asked for a full, logical explanation.
As evidenced above, the speed profile of a linear compressor is a design need/requirement that must be specified by a user before operating a linear compressor (see e.g. 0026 of Haseley and 0034 of Ursan).
Secondly, as detailed above applicant’s assertion is not only incorrect but also it provides even more evidence that the one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow a relatively rapid expansion phase in order to “avoid extreme temperatures in the compression chamber” by allowing a relatively rapid adiabatic expansion of the high pressure gas retained after completion of the compression stroke and thereby lowering the temperature of the retained gas.
Thirdly, as detailed above, in order to operate a linear compressor, a person of ordinary skill in the art there is a design need/requirement that that must be specified by a user before operating a linear compressor (see e.g. 0026 of Haseley and 0034 of Ursan). And when faced with selecting this required piston speed profile, one of ordinary skill in the art has ONLY three possible choices: the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher, lower, or the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the choice of the mean velocity during the expansion phase being the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase is merely theoretical and not practically achievable as the two mean velocities would not be exactly the same (some measurable variance in practice) even if attempted. Thus, practically speaking a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mean velocity during the expansion phase would be higher or lower than the mean velocity during the intake phase meaning there are only really two practical options for a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve. Thus, given there is only three theoretical choices (and two practical choices) for a person of ordinary skill in the art, a finding of obviousness is supported as per MPEP 21433 I (E) and MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner did not bring up a finding that, at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem (as per MPEP 2143 I (E) ("Obvious To Try"), (1) ("a finding at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem"). It is submitted that, as neither Haseley nor Ursan mentions the flow resistance of valves let alone propose a solution to that problem, it is not obvious for the person of ordinary skill to modify the velocities within the piston stroke to obtain the subject matter of former claim 2 (now incorporated into amended independent claim 1).
In view of the foregoing, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Haseley in view of Ursan. Claims 2-5, 8-14, and 16 depend from amended independent claim 1 and are therefore also patentable over Haseley in view of Ursan.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, is applicant arguing that there is no design need/requirement for specifying the piston speed profile before operating a linear compressor such as that of Haseley or Ursan? As detailed above, in order to operate a linear compressor, a person of ordinary skill in the art there is a design need/requirement that the piston speed profile be selected (see e.g. 0026 of Haseley and 0034 of Ursan). And when faced with selecting this required piston speed profile, one of ordinary skill in the art has ONLY three possible choices: the mean velocity during the expansion phase is higher, lower, or the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the choice of the mean velocity during the expansion phase being the same as than the mean velocity during the intake phase is merely theoretical and not practically achievable as the two mean velocities would not be exactly the same (some measurable variance in practice) even if attempted. Thus, practically speaking a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mean velocity during the expansion phase would be higher or lower than the mean velocity during the intake phase meaning there are only really two practical options for a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve. Thus, given there is only three theoretical choices (and two practical choices) for a person of ordinary skill in the art, a finding of obviousness is supported as per MPEP 2143 I (E) and MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Secondly, there is no requirement that a reference “mentions the flow resistance of valves let alone propose a solution to that problem”. MPEP 2144 IV states: “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 19 are provided above as the limitations applicant argues correspond to the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights