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 § 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 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 21 and their dependents 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the statuses” and "the operating diagram" in line 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the operating diagram" and “the operating limits” in lines 1 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the operating period" and “the various successive time intervals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the value from the operating period". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the particular operating period reduction value" and “the particular operating period limit value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the particular operating period reduction value" and “the particular operating period limit value” and “the duration of the time interval”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the bearing parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the operating periods" and “the individual time intervals” in lines 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Many of the antecedent concerns appear to arise from Claims that lack proper dependency, as each Claim depends from Claim 1 only. For example, Claim 9 introduces a “reduction value”; but neither Claim 10 or Claim 11 which also include a “the…reduction value” are dependent from Claim 9.
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, 6-8, 15, 17-21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0018096) in view of May et al (US PGPub No. 2016/0084734).
Lifson teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a method for operating status of a refrigerant compressor comprising a compressor unit (12), including the determination and prediction of operation of the compressor using parameters such as speed and load (paragraph 13 teaches that the operating status determination allows for preventative maintenance; paragraphs 14-15, 22 teaching multiple parameters used to detect degradation in the refrigerant compressor);
Lifson, while teaching preventative maintenance based on a multitude of parameters, does not teach monitoring bearing failure specifically;
May teaches:
limitations from claim 1, a method for operating status determination for a machine (see paragraph 3, “pump or turbine”); a load value resulting from an operation of said refrigerant compressor/expander and a speed value are determined (paragraph 35 torque corresponds to a load; Claim 6 teaches both torque and speed), and wherein, on the basis of the speed value and the load value and also at least one operating parameter (paragraph 35, pressure, flow, temperature, etc), there is determined for the at least one bearing an operating prediction value for a future maintenance-free operation of the refrigerant compressor/expander (paragraph 29 teaching the determination of wear and subsequent maintenance; paragraphs 37-39 teaching control based on the wear determination);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to provide a bearing monitoring feature in the compressor system of Lifson, as taught by May, in order to provide a more robust automated monitoring of particular components to reduce repair time and costs (paragraph 29 of May).
May further teaches:
limitations from claim 2, wherein the load value of the at least one bearing is determined taking into account at least one of i) pressure values and ii) temperature values of the refrigerant compressor/expander (paragraph 35);
limitations from claim 3, wherein the load value of the bearing is determined by detecting at least one of i) pressure values and ii) temperature values on a high-pressure side of the refrigerant compressor/expander and at least one of i) pressure values and ii) temperature values on a low-pressure side of the refrigerant compressor/expander (paragraph 35 teaching both pressure and temperature);
limitations from claim 6, wherein, on the basis of load values occurring in conjunction with defined time intervals of the operation of the refrigerant compressor/expander, values for an operating period associated with these time intervals are determined (paragraphs 26-27 teach monitoring parameters as a function of time; Claim 6 discusses load and temporal distribution);
limitations from claim 7, wherein, on the basis of speed values occurring in conjunction with time intervals of the operation of the refrigerant compressor/expander, values for an operating period associated with these time intervals are determined (paragraphs 26-27 teach monitoring parameters as a function of time; Claim 6 discusses speed and temporal distribution);
limitations from claim 8, wherein the operating prediction value is determined from the values for the operating period for the various successive time intervals (paragraphs 26-27 teach monitoring parameters as a function of time; Claim 6 discusses load and temporal distribution);
limitations from claim 15, wherein, when determining the operating prediction value, at least one bearing parameter of the at least one selected bearing is taken into account as operating parameter (paragraphs 35, 37-39);
limitations from claim 17, wherein the at least one selected bearing is a bearing that takes up forces occurring during the compression of the refrigerant (paragraph 5);
limitations from claim 18, wherein the at least one selected bearing is the bearing of the refrigerant compressor/expander with the highest mechanical load (paragraph 5-6; May teaches monitoring various bearings in the pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor all of the bearings, or a particular one most likely to fail in order to prevent failure of the entire pump);
limitations from claim 19, wherein the at least one selected bearing is the bearing with the shortest service life (paragraph 5-6; May teaches monitoring various bearings in the pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor all of the bearings, or a particular one most likely to fail in order to prevent failure of the entire pump);
limitations from claim 20, wherein the at least one selected bearing is the bearing with the smallest diameter (paragraph 5-6; May teaches monitoring various bearings in the pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor all of the bearings, or a particular one most likely to fail in order to prevent failure of the entire pump);
limitations from claim 23, wherein the operating prediction value is transmitted to at least one of i) a superordinate control and ii) a monitoring unit (paragraph 29 “program-controlled-machine);
limitations from claim 24, wherein the operating prediction value is made accessible to the manufacturer of the refrigerant compressor/expander (paragraph 29 “advised to the maintenance team”);
Lifson further teaches:
limitations from claim 21, wherein at least one of i) the operating prediction value and ii) the operating periods determined for the individual time intervals are made available in an external memory (see Claim13 discussing the use of memory to store and recall parameters relevant to the determination of system lifetime);
limitations from claim 25, wherein the operating prediction value is compared with operating prediction values of a virtual bearing (paragraphs 12, 15-16 wherein predicted and actual values are compared);
limitations from claim 26, wherein the operating prediction value is compared with virtual operating prediction values from virtual operating parameters (paragraphs 12, 15-16 wherein predicted and actual values are compared);
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0018096) in view of May et al (US PGPub No. 2016/0084734) as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of NPL titled “Basic Bearing Knowledge” (herein Koyo).
Regarding Claims 4-5:
May teaches using curves calibrated to characteristics of the bearing (paragraph 27), but neither Lifson nor May teaches the use of operating diagrams in determining parameters;
However, Koyo teaches ISO methods of determining bearing wear in which diagrams divided into operating zones with associated parameter values (FIG. 5.2-5.6) are relied upon to account for different parameters such as bearing types, load limits, etc);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to utilize operating diagrams in determining bearing life predictions in the compressor of Lifson, as taught by Koyo, in order to standardized for known sets of operating parameters, allowing quick and relevant parameter selsection.
4. (Original) The method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the load value of the at least one bearing is determined taking into account the operation of the refrigerant compressor/expander for the statuses within the operating diagram.
5. (Original) The method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the operating diagram is divided within the operating limits into a plurality of operating zones having load values associated with them, and wherein, within the various operating zones, the load values associated with these operating zones are consulted during operation of the refrigerant compressor/expander.
Regarding Claim 16:
May does not explicitly disclose service life, load rating, and/or bearin type as parameters;
However, Koyo teaches bearing type (FIG. 5.2…5.n), fatigue load limit (Cu), and lifetime (life modification factor α);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to rely upon parameters such as these, in order to account for affective conditions (bearing type) that change from one compressor or use to another.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson et al (US PGPub No. 2004/0018096) in view of May et al (US PGPub No. 2016/0084734) as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Wallace et al (US PGPub No. 2017/0089598).
Neither Lifson nor May disclose a display;
Wallace teaches a refrigeration diagnostic system in which a display (76) is provided to indicate to a user the health of the system (paragraphs 131-132);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of compressors at the time the invention was filed to provide a display in the system of Lifson, as taught by Wallace, in order to allow a user to conveniently determine the health of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Claims 9-11 (Claims 10-11 appear to require dependency from 9) require an operating period reduction value determined for each time interval of an operating period, wherein the sum of all the operating period reduction values is subtracted from a predefined operating period limit value. None of the prior art teaches such a treatment of an operating period data set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO2020/189398 teaches bearing lifetime determination with torque, temperature, and speed.
WO2020/132708 teaches bearing lifetime determination with speed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746