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 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.
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: “clutch assembly” and “a proportional air inlet valve device” in claim claims 1 and 11 (and other dependent claims).
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. Here, The clutch assembly comprises a having a clutch and a belt assembly (¶0019) and the proportional inlet device has a solenoid valve (¶¶ 0006, 0032)
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
Claims 2 and 12 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the word “proximate”. The term “proximate” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, this term is understood very broadly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jochman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0145412).
Regarding claim 1, Jochman discloses an engine driven welding system (Jochman, abstract, ¶0001, engine-driven power system configured to power…welders and portable air compressors) having an air compressor subsystem, the system comprising:
an air compressor (Jochman, ¶0021, “air compressor”);
a first air pressure sensor (¶0021, “second pressure sensor”, emphasis added, the first sensor in the claim is equivalent to the second sensor in the reference) configured to measure an outlet air pressure value at an outlet of the air compressor subsystem.
a proportional air inlet valve (¶0015, “proportional control valve”) device configured to be adjusted to regulate the outlet air pressure value (¶0043);
at least one controller (controller 114, ¶¶0032, 0041) configured to record (“record, Merriam-Webster, definition 1(C)(2), “indicate, read”, retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/record) an adjustment value of the proportional air inlet valve device as adjusted;
a clutch assembly (Jochman, ¶¶0019, 0021, clutch) configured to be engaged to enable air compression, and configured to be disengaged by the at least one controller when the adjustment value of the proportional air inlet valve falls below a first threshold value for a determined period of time (Jochman, ¶¶0031, 0032, 0048, 0049, when reaches threshold, closes inlet which would be where “adjustment value falls below a threshold, i.e. closes, and then a timer starts and after a certain amount of time, it disengages); and
a second air pressure sensor (Jochman, ¶0024, in response to the first sensor measuring a pressure level below the threshold pressure level, controlling…the clutch to engage”, ¶0046, the second sensor in the claim is equivalent to the first sensor in the reference) configured to monitor a second air pressure value, where the clutch assembly cannot be re-engaged by the at least one controller unless the second air pressure value falls below a second threshold value.
Regarding claim 4, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to control the proportional air inlet valve device (¶¶0041, 0043).
Regarding claim 11, Jochman discloses a method of operating an air compressor subsystem of an engine driven welding system (Jochman, abstract, ¶0001, engine-driven power system configured to power…welders and portable air compressors), the method comprising:
measuring an outlet air pressure value at an outlet of an air compressor subsystem of an engine driven welding system (Jochman, ¶¶15, 0021, 0043);
adjusting a proportional air inlet valve device of the air compressor subsystem to regulate the outlet air pressure value (Jochman, ¶0043);
recording an adjustment value of the proportional air inlet valve device based on the adjusting (controller 114, ¶¶0032, 0041; “record, Merriam-Webster, definition 1(C)(2), “indicate, read”, retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/record);
disengaging a clutch of an engine of the engine driven welding system when the adjustment value of the proportional air inlet valve device falls below a first threshold value for a determined period of time (Jochman, ¶¶0019, 0021, clutch ¶¶0031, 0032, 0048, 0049, when reaches threshold, closes inlet which would be where “adjustment value falls below a threshold, i.e. closes, and then a timer starts and after a certain amount of time, it disengages)
; and
monitoring a second air pressure value, wherein the clutch cannot be re-engaged unless the second air pressure value falls below a second threshold value ((Jochman, ¶0024, in response to the first sensor measuring a pressure level below the threshold pressure level, controlling…the clutch to engage”, ¶0046, the second sensor in the claim is equivalent to the first sensor in the reference)).
Regarding claim 14, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the proportional air inlet valve device is controlled by a controller (¶¶0041, 0043).
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.
[Note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitations is not disclosed by the reference.]
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jochman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0145412).
Regarding claim 5, Jochman teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the at least one controller is configured to stop an engine of the engine driven welding system when conditions indicate inactivity over a second determined period of time.. However, the reference already teaches disengaging after the period of time. (Jochman, ¶0056, “a duration of time can be monitored and/or measured, during which the clutch of the air compressor is disengaged”). However, should the clutch be disengaged, as the compressor is not required, nor is the welder required after such a delay, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the engine turn off or stop in order to save power to the welder should it no longer be required.
Regarding claim 6, Jochman teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the at least one controller is configured to vary a speed of an engine of the engine driven welding system based on a demand of the air compressor subsystem (Jochman, ¶0043, “ the system 100 employs a controller 114 for controlling an output of the air compressor 102. For instance, the controller 114 can engage the clutch 106 to operate at variable speeds in response to the speed of the engine 104”).
Regarding claim 15, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising stopping an engine of the engine driven welding system when conditions indicate inactivity over a second determined period of time. However, the reference already teaches disengaging after the period of time. (Jochman, ¶0056, “a duration of time can be monitored and/or measured, during which the clutch of the air compressor is disengaged”). However, should the clutch be disengaged, as the compressor is not required, nor is the welder required after such a delay, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the engine turn off or stop in order to save power to the welder should it no longer be required.
Regarding claim 16, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a method comprising varying a speed of an engine of the engine driven welding system based on a demand of the air compressor subsystem (Jochman, ¶0056,at least , “Thus, once a demand for air pressure is measured, the engine can be controlled to increase in speed (e.g., change from an idle speed to an operating speed)”).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jochman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0145412) in view of Peotter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 0064992).
Regarding claim 2, Jochman disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a system comprising an oil/gas separator device, wherein the second air pressure sensor is mounted proximate the oil/gas separator device. And while Jochman does not explicitly teach a separator, such separators are conventional, such as in Peoter’ compressor (Peotter, ¶0046, “air reservoir/separator 152 separates and captures oil from the air/oil mixture delivered by the air compressor”). The advantage it to make sure the air is cleaner and purer and free from oil contamination before it is delivered. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jochman with the teachings of Peoter, to make sure that the delivered air is free from contamination, and it would have been obvious to put a sensor proximate the separator, in order to know when the pressurized clean air is required.
Regarding claim 12, Jochman disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising an oil/gas separator device, wherein the second air pressure sensor is mounted proximate the oil/gas separator device. And while Jochman does not explicitly teach a separator, such separators are conventional, such as in Peoter’ compressor (Peotter, ¶0046, “air reservoir/separator 152 separates and captures oil from the air/oil mixture delivered by the air compressor”). The advantage it to make sure the air is cleaner and purer and free from oil contamination before it is delivered. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jochman with the teachings of Peoter, to make sure that the delivered air is free from contamination, and it would have been obvious to put a sensor proximate the separator, in order to know when the pressurized clean air is required.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jochman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0145412) in view of Peotter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 0064992).
Regarding claim 3, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the proportional air inlet valve device includes a solenoid valve. Jochman does not disclose or teach how his proportional air valve works. However, Peotter teaches an engine for welding and proportional air flow delivered to an air compressor (Peotter, abstract) wherein the proportional air inlet valve device includes a solenoid valve ( Peotter, ¶0044, “a proportional solenoid may be directly coupled to the inlet valve 130 to provide for direct control over the inlet valve”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jochman with the teachings of Peotter, to use a solenoid in order to be able to control the air inlet of the compressor in a conventional way achieving only the expected result of controlling the air entering the air compressor.
Regarding claim 13, Jochman teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further explicitly teach a method wherein the proportional air inlet valve device includes a solenoid valve. Jochman does not disclose or teach how his proportional air valve works. However, Peotter teaches an engine for welding and proportional air flow delivered to an air compressor (Peotter, abstract) wherein the proportional air inlet valve device includes a solenoid valve ( Peotter, ¶0044, “a proportional solenoid may be directly coupled to the inlet valve 130 to provide for direct control over the inlet valve”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jochman with the teachings of Peotter, to use a solenoid in order to be able to control the air inlet of the compressor in a conventional way achieving only the expected result of controlling the air entering the air compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 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.
The claims recite limitations that are not obvious over the prior art. Specifically, claims 2 and 12 recite, inter alia, the placement of the sensor that is not found in the prior art. And claims 7-10 and 17-20 recite limitations about how the system responds to electrical parameters, reducing systems in response to parameters from another system, that are also not obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights