DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Product by Process Limitations
Initially, and with respect to claim(s) 1 note that a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et ah, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim limitation “the propeller” in line 21 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because the claims have established the “propellers” in line 9 but this claim refers to a single propeller. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that propeller in line 21 refers to the propellers in line 9.
The claim limitation “the rotor” in line 22 is unclear. There have been several rotors established in the claims (see the female and male rotor in lines 1 and 2) and its unclear which one this refers to. for the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation refers to the female and male rotor.
The claim limitation “a propeller side delivery” in the final lines of the claim is unclear. Its unclear what the propeller side delivery is and the figures and specification do not specific what side the locking ring is located on. While figures 5a and 5b do show locking rings 211/311 they fail to show this in context of the greater assembly and further the specification only repeats this limitation of the claim. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation requires the locking ring to be located on either side of the shaft/rotor.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean patent document KR 20070106856 A to Lee (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) in view of US 3,467,300 to Schibbye, EP 2532895 A1 to Dirscherl et al. (Dirscherl)(see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) and WO 2010142003 A1 to Nachtergaele et al. (Nachtergaele) as evidenced by US 2016/0123327 to Collins et al. (Collins).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood by the examiner, see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above for the claim interpretation):
Lee discloses:
A screw compressor (figure 8) comprising: a male rotor (110 and 115) and a female rotor (120 and 125) configured to engage (see figure 8) the male rotor (110 and 115), whereby the male rotor (110 and 115) and the female rotor (120 and 125) are enclosed in a casing (130) inside which the male (110 and 115) and female (120 and 125) rotors counter-rotate (inherent function of the rotors since they need to counter-rotate in order to function), to drive the male rotor (110 and 115) from a motor (“driving motor”, see translation page 5, ¶11), a gas (“refrigerant”, see translation page 2, ¶2 and 3) passes through an intake duct (131) and a rotation closes the intake duct (131) at an intake (inherent due to the shape of the male and female rotors which create compression chambers between them closing the intake duct as they rotate) and a compressed gas is pushed towards a delivery (outlet 132),
the male (110 and 115) and female (120 and 125) rotors include a rotation shaft (115 and 125) which rotates in the casing (130) due to bearings (141 and 151) and is surrounded by propellers (110 and 120) which engage each other (see figure 8), the propellers (110 and 120) being made to reduce progressively a space between the male (110 and 115) and female (120 and 125) rotors and the casing (130) (inherent structure of the screw 110 and 120 since the space between the rotors must reduce in order to compress the fluid between), so that the gas sucked in by the intake duct (131) compresses in a direction of delivery (132)(translation page 5, ¶3),
wherein the propellers (110 and 120) are made of a polymeric material (translation, page 6, ¶2 and 3; “Here, the male rotor 110 and the female rotor 120 are made of a high-strength plastic material such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK)”) and the propellers (110 and 120) are made by 3D molding using fused deposition modeling (this is considered a product by process limitation (see the above paragraph 3) since it describes how to manufacture the structure already taught in the claim 1 rejection above and since the Lee reference teaches the structure of the product claim 1 the Lee reference reads on this claim as well).
Lee fails to disclose:
A male rotor having a plurality of convex lobes and a female rotor having a plurality of concave cavities configured to engage with the plurality of convex lobes of the male rotor, whereby the male rotor and the female rotor are enclosed in a casing inside which the male and female rotors counter-rotate;
the propellers defined by the plurality of convex lobes and the plurality of concave cavities;
wherein the shaft and external projections are produced in a more resistant material than the propellers and are subsequently connected to polymeric helical parts;
wherein the screw compressor comprises locking means configured for locking relative axial displacement between the propellers and the rotation shafts, said locking means comprising a projection on each of the rotation shafts which fits a groove made in the propeller and having a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter around a circumference of the rotor, and said locking means further comprising a locking ring of a propeller side delivery disposed on each of the male and female rotors.
Schibbye teaches:
A screw compressor (figures 1 and 3) that includes male (40) and female (42) rotors and an outer casing (10). The male rotor is mounted on a shaft (48) and the female rotor is mounted on another shaft (see figure 1). The male rotor has convex lobes (see the concave lobe A in figure 1 below) and the female rotor has concave lobes (see the concave lobe B in figure 1 below).
Dirscherl teaches:
A screw compressor/pump (figure 1) that includes rotors (5 and 5’) and shafts (6). The reference teaches the rotor and rotor shaft can be made from PEEK (translation, page 7, ¶4) or that the rotor can be made from PEEK and the shaft can be made from high-strength material (indicating a material stronger than PEEK which indicates are made from a more bending resistant material) such as aluminum, titanium, nickel alloys and steel alloys (translation, page 7, ¶4). Further, the reference teaches the shaft can include external projections such as bearing surfaces (28 and 28’/29 and 29’) to support the shaft.
Nachtergaele teaches:
A rotor (figure 2) for a screw pump including a shaft (6) and a rotor body (2). The shaft further includes locking means including a locking ring (12/15) received on groove/threads (17) of the shaft and a projection (11; page 12, lines 5-10 “A first tension element 11 is provided in the shape of an increase of the diameter of the shaft 6 ' so as to form a collar 13”) with a second diameter greater than the shaft (as shown in figure 2 by “d” and “D”). The addition of the locking means to the shaft aid in retention of the rotor body to the shaft (page 5, lines 15-25).
Regarding the limitation “A male rotor having a plurality of convex lobes and a female rotor having a plurality of concave cavities configured to engage with the plurality of convex lobes of the male rotor, whereby the male rotor and the female rotor are enclosed in a casing inside which the male and female rotors counter-rotate; the propellers defined by the plurality of convex lobes and the plurality of concave cavities”:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to replace the male and female surfaces on the male and female rotors in Lee with the convex and concave lobes respectively as taught by Schibbye. This is a simple substitution of one known element (male and female surfaces on the male and female rotors of Lee) for another (concave and convex lobes as taught by Schibbye) to obtain predictable results (to compress fluid in the pump/compressor of Lee).
Regarding the propellers/female and male rotors made by a 3D molding using fused deposition modeling process, even if the applicant was to argue that the fused deposition modeling provides a unique structure to the rotors and overcome the product by process argument above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to manufacture the male and female rotors from this process (fused deposition modeling/3D modeling) since the male and female rotors are parts with complex shapes that are difficult or expensive to manufacture through traditional methods. This is further evidenced by US 2016/0123327 to Collins which demonstrates that male and female rotors can be made by a fused deposition modeling process (see ¶0055 of Collins).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the shaft and the external projections are produced in a more resistant material than the propellers and are subsequently connected to the polymeric helical parts”:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the shaft made from high-strength material (indicating a material stronger than PEEK which indicates are made from a more bending resistant material) such as aluminum, titanium, nickel alloys and steel alloys and external projections such as bearing surface as taught by Dirscherl to improve the bending and wear resistance (Dirscherl, translation, page 7, ¶4) and to support the shaft during operation/rotation. Further, with the Lee reference already teaching the rotor made of PEEK this combination would result in the shaft made out of high-strength material (indicating a material stronger than PEEK which indicates are made from a more bending resistant material) such as aluminum, titanium, nickel alloys and steel alloys with Dirscherl teaches is stronger than PEEK (Dirscherl, translation, page 7, ¶4) which indicates the shaft is made from a more resistant material (resistant to bending and wear).
Also, the applicant should note that the shaft being made from more resistant material than the material of the shaft is well known in the prior art and alluded to in the Lee reference. The reference teaches in the Lee translation, page 6, ¶2 and 3 “Here, the male rotor 110 and the female rotor 120 are made of a high-strength plastic material such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK)” which suggests the shafts 115 and 120 are made of another material. Typically, in the prior art the structures are arranged in this manner because the shaft is more wear resistant and bend resistant than the plastic material and is why the shaft is made from higher strength material. Further, this is not only well known in the pump art but in a variety of arts where only a portion of a structure requires high strength while anther portion of the structure can be made from other materials due to costs, manufacturing or other physical requirements. This includes machining tools, cutlery and toys.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the screw compressor comprises locking means configured for locking relative axial displacement between the propellers and the rotation shafts, said locking means comprising a projection on each of the rotation shafts which fits a groove made in the propeller and having a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter around a circumference of the rotor, and said locking means further comprising a locking ring of a propeller side delivery disposed on each of the male and female rotors”:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to replace the coupling currently in Lee ((see translation page 4 final paragraph, “The male rotor 110 has a spiral protrusion 111 formed on an outer circumferential surface thereof, and a driving shaft 115 is coupled to the center thereof” and page 5 first paragraph “The 121 and the driven shaft 125 is coupled to the center”) with the locking means including a projection with a second diameter and a locking ring to the shaft in Lee (including the projection on the shaft and a locking ring on the shaft) as taught by Nachtergaele which would secure the propeller/rotor to the shaft (Nachtergaele, page 5, lines 15-25). Further, this modification is a simple substitution of one known element (coupling of Lee) for another (coupling including the projection, groove and locking ring of Nachtergaele) to obtain predictable results (secure the rotation shaft to the propeller). The addition of the locking means would include the locking ring and a projection with a second diameter larger than the diameter of the shaft and located on one side of the shaft/rotor.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 3 of Schibbye, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 3:
Lee discloses:
The screw compressor according to claim 1, wherein the rotation shafts (115 and 125) are mechanically connected (“coupled”, translation page 4, final paragraph) to the respective propellers (110 and 120) in order to transmit torque of an engine (engine/motor, “driving motor”, see translation page 5, ¶11) through a suitable locking system (“coupled” of translation page 4 final paragraph indicating the propeller 110 is attached/locked to the shaft 115).
Regarding claim 4:
Lee discloses:
The screw compressor according to claim 1, wherein said polymeric material of the propellers is PEEK (translation. Page 6, ¶2 and 3; “Here, the male rotor 110 and the female rotor 120 are made of a high-strength plastic material such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK)”).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee discloses:
The screw compressor according to claim 1, further comprising bearings (151), gears (116 and 126), or seals (152 and 142).
Lee fails to disclose:
Further comprising lubrication channels, accessible from outside, which carry lubricant to gears, seals or the bearings.
Schibbye teaches:
A screw compressor including male and female rotors (40 and 42) mounted on shafts (48). The shafts are supported by bearings (column 5, lines 20-35) which support the shaft. The bearings are supplied for lubricant (column 5, lines 20-35) via channels (82) that are accessible from outside of the housing/stator (see figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to further include a channel for supply lubricant to the bearings (151 in Lee) accessible from the outside of the housing or stator (15 of Lee) as taught by Schibbye to lubricate the bearing and reduce wear and further to remove heat from the compressor (Schibbye, column 5, lines 20-45).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Schibbye, Dirscherl and Nachtergaele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese patent document JP 2003176795 A to Suman et al. (Suman)(see attached English language machine translations).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee, Schibbye, Dirscherl and Nachtergaele fail to disclose:
The screw compressor according to claim 1, whereby internal stator bodies are coated with an abradable polymeric film.
Suman teaches:
A screw compressor (figure 7; ¶0002) that includes rotors (35 and 36) that are mounted on shafts (37 and 41) that are with a stator/housing (15). Further, the reference teaches the rotors exterior surface and internal surfaces (23 and 25) of the stator can be coated with an abradable coating/film (61). Also, the reference teaches the abradable coating/film (61) can be a polymeric resin (translation, ¶0016 or page 4 ¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee, Schibbye, Dirscherl and Nachtergaele to further include an abradable polymeric film to the interior surface of the stator/housing (130, 170, 140 of Lee) as taught by Suman to improve the volumetric efficiency of the compressor (Suman, translation, ¶0016 or page 3). Note, the interpretation of applying the abradable polymeric film to the interior of the housing/casing is based on the 35 USC 112(b) rejection/interpretation of claim 7 indicated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims:
The applicant has provided several arguments as to why the above rejections is improper however the office is not persuaded.
The applicant has argued that the amendment “wherein the screw compressor comprises locking means configured for locking relative axial displacement between the propellers and the rotation shafts, said locking means comprising a projection on each of the rotation shafts which fits a groove made in the propeller and having a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter around a circumference of the rotor, and said locking means further comprising a locking ring of a propeller side delivery disposed on each of the male and female rotors” are not taught by the claim and for this reason the above rejections should be withdrawn. However, as indicated in the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection the amendment to the claim is not clear and further based on the offices interpretation of the claim (consistent with the drawings and specification) the structure required by the claim is taught and for this reason it is rejected above.
The applicant indicates that the embodiment of figure 3 in of Nachtergaele does not teach the projection as found in the amended claims (see page 5 of the remarks). However, as indicated above, the figure 2 embodiment does teach the projection and locking ring as required by the claim and therefore the combination with the primary reference does teach the structure required by the claim. For this reason, the above rejection is maintained.
The applicant further argues that the structure of the projection and the locking element are not taught by the combination with Nachtergaele and for this reason the above rejection cannot be maintained (see page 6 of the remarks). However, as indicated above, the embodiment of figure 2 of Nachtergaele shows the locking ring (12/15) and the projection (11) with a second diameter larger than the diameter of the shaft. Further, Nachtergaele combined with the primary reference would teach the structure required by the claim and is why the above rejection is maintained.
For these reasons, the above rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have addressed the previous claim objections and for this reason they have been withdrawn. However, a new set of rejections have been made based on the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783