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 § 102
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, 3-6, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai et al. US 2019/0003470 (hereafter Kawai).
Regarding claim 1, Kawai teaches an actuator for supplying compressed air for a vehicle (¶1), the actuator comprising:
a compression unit (9) configured to compress air from outside to form air compressed higher than a predetermined pressure;
a drying unit (17) configured to receive the compressed air compressed to the predetermined pressure by the compression unit via a movement passage (passage of valve 16) connecting the compression unit and a first portion (portion of unit 17 near spring 17d) of the drying unit to remove moisture from the compressed air; and
a storage tank (58) connected to the drying unit via a connecting passage (59) connected to a second portion (37A3) of the drying unit and configured to store the compressed air passing through the drying unit to be supplied to the vehicle;
wherein the connecting passage (59) is used as a regeneration path so that the compressed air stored in the storage tank is configured to move to the drying unit (where the connecting passage is fully capable of being used as a regeneration path in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g) where the connecting passage is fluidly connected to the drying unit; further see ¶48).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kawai further teaches wherein the compressed air to be discharged through a discharge passage (22) connected to the storage tank is stored in the storage tank at 10 bar or above 10 bar (where the structure of Kawai is fully capable of performing the function of storing at or above 10 bar; see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kawai further teaches an exhaust passage (17E) extending from a third portion (portion near valve 20) of the drying unit; and a regeneration valve (20) provided at the exhaust passage, wherein, by opening the regeneration valve, the compressed air in the storage tank is discharged to the exhaust passage through the connection passage and the drying unit sequentially so that moisture inside the drying unit is discharged outside (¶48).
Regarding claim 5, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Kawai further teaches wherein the regeneration valve is periodically opened to periodically regenerate an adsorbent in the drying unit (¶48).
Regarding claim 6, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Kawai further teaches wherein the drying unit and the compression unit are combined into one body (1 in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Kawai further teaches wherein the drying unit includes a drying passage (passage accommodating adsorbent 17C in Fig 1), fluidically-communicating with the movement passage, through which the compressed air passes, and accommodating therein an adsorbent (17C) for adsorbing the moisture, so that the moisture contained in the compressed air is adsorbed while the compressed air passes through the drying passage toward the storage tank (¶33).
Regarding claim 20, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kawai further teaches an exhaust passage (17E) extending from a third portion (portion near valve 20) of the drying unit; and a regeneration valve (20) provided at the exhaust passage, wherein the controller is further configured for opening the regeneration valve, so that the compressed air in the storage tank is discharged to the exhaust passage through the connection passage and the drying unit sequentially to discharge the moisture inside the drying unit outside (¶48).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kan WO 2020/174835 published 3 Sep. 2020 as translated by EPO (hereafter Kan).
Regarding claim 2, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kawai does not teach wherein, when a pressure in the storage tank reaches a predetermined pressure value, a control valve connected to the storage tank and configured to lower a pressure in the storage tank is opened.
Kan teaches supplying compressed air for a vehicle (¶1) wherein, when a pressure in the storage tank reaches a predetermined pressure value, a control valve (46) connected to the storage tank and configured to lower a pressure in the storage tank is opened in order to provide safety (¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage tank (58) of Kawai by incorporating the control valve (46) of Kan in order to provide pressure relief for safety (¶78).
Regarding claim 17, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Kawai does not teach a controller configured for: in a state in which a pressure in the storage tank reaches a predetermined first pressure value, periodically opening a discharge valve connected to the storage tank for a predetermined time period.
Kan teaches supplying compressed air for a vehicle (¶1) wherein, when a pressure in the storage tank reaches a predetermined pressure value, a control valve (46) connected to the storage tank and configured to lower a pressure in the storage tank is opened in order to provide safety (¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator (31) of Kawai by incorporating a controller and control valve (46) of Kan in order to provide pressure relief for safety (¶78). When the storage tank reaches a predetermined pressure value, the controller would open the discharge valve for a predetermined time period to relieve pressure.
Regarding claim 18, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Kawai does not teach wherein the controller is further configured for: setting an opening cycle of the discharge valve to be shorter than the predetermined time period, when weather condition around the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge valve time of Kawai to be shorter based on weather for instance to avoid generating ice (where low outside temperatures high outside humidity could cause freezing then the compressed air expands upon opening the valve.
Claims 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirchhoff et al. US 2020/0378377 (hereafter Kirchhoff).
Regarding claim 7, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Kawai further teaches wherein the compression unit includes: a pump motor (2); and a compressing portion, including a piston (11) configured to move up and down by, a cylinder (10B) disposed at a reciprocating stroke of the piston, and a compressing portion body (9) configured to receive the piston and the cylinder, and configured to compress the air from outside into compressed air in the cylinder.
Kawai does not teach wherein the compression unit includes: a pump motor configured to rotate a rotation shaft; and a compressing portion, including a piston configured to move up and down by eccentric rotation of a rotation receiving portion configured to receive an eccentric rotation shaft, a cylinder disposed at a reciprocating stroke of the piston, and a compressing portion body configured to receive the piston and the cylinder, and configured to compress the air from outside into compressed air in the cylinder.
Kirchhoff teaches supplying compressed air for a vehicle (¶1) wherein the compression unit includes: a pump motor (motor comprising electric motor 300) configured to rotate a rotation shaft (341); and a compressing portion (portion comprising piston 402), including a piston (402) configured to move up and down by eccentric rotation of a rotation receiving portion (404) configured to receive an eccentric rotation shaft (344), a cylinder (124) disposed at a reciprocating stroke of the piston, and a compressing portion body configured to receive the piston and the cylinder (as shown in Fig 1), and configured to compress the air from outside into compressed air in the cylinder. Kirchhoff teaches where the arrangement allows reduced space and weight (¶15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor (2) and compressing portion (11) of Kawai by incorporating the motor (300) and compressing portion (402) of Kirchhoff in order to reduce space and weight (¶15).
Regarding claims 8-9, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 7.
Kawai does not teach wherein the pump motor includes: a stator provided inside a housing and having formed therein a hollow portion; and a rotor, having an annular shape, including N-pole permanent magnets and S-pole permanent magnets alternately disposed in a circumferential direction thereof, wherein a boundary between the N-pole permanent magnet and the S-pole permanent magnet is inclined at an acute angle with respect to the rotation shaft, and configured to rotate integrally with the rotation shaft and wherein the pump motor is a brushless direct current motor (BLDC).
Kirchhoff teaches wherein the pump motor includes: a stator (304) provided inside a housing (stator housing in Fig 1) and having formed therein a hollow portion; and a rotor (340), having an annular shape (as shown in Fig 1 where the annular shape receives the stator), including N-pole permanent magnets and S-pole permanent magnets alternately disposed in a circumferential direction thereof, wherein a boundary between the N-pole permanent magnet and the S-pole permanent magnet is inclined at an acute angle with respect to the rotation shaft, and configured to rotate integrally with the rotation shaft (¶18, ¶45, ¶62, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the description of Kirchhoff’s permanent magnets in the brushless DC motor teaches the limitation) and wherein the pump motor is a brushless direct current motor (¶18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor (2) of Kawai by incorporating the brushless DC motor (300, ¶18) of Kirchhoff in order to reduce space and weight (¶15).
Regarding claim 14, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Kawai further teaches wherein the compressing portion further includes a side body cover (14), configured to close one side at which the cylinder is located and one side of the drying unit, coupled to one side of the compressing portion body, and having formed therein the movement passage extending from the cylinder to the drying unit.
Regarding claim 15, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Kawai further teaches the portion of the exhaust passage connecting the space between filter 17B2 and the cylinder head 14 with outside the drying and compressing units (¶33).
Kawai does not teach wherein the one side body cover includes a portion of the exhaust passage.
MPEP 2144.04 VI C states that mere rearrangement of parts does not patentably differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the valve 20 of Kawai to be in the one side body portion in order to connect the space between filter 17B2 and the cylinder head 14 with outside the drying and compressing units in a shorter path and without going through the adsorbent.
Regarding claim 16, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Kawai further teaches wherein the compressing portion further includes another side body cover (labeled below), configured to close another side of the compressing portion body and another side of the drying unit, coupled to the other side of the compressing portion body, and having formed therein a portion of the connecting passage (37a3) extending from the drying unit to the storage tank.
[AltContent: textbox (Another side body cover)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Frank et al. US 2013/0320639 (hereafter Frank).
Regarding claim 11, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Kawai further teaches regeneration comprising a regeneration valve (20) which opens during regeneration (¶48).
Kawai does not teach a heat dissipation coil configured to heat the adsorbent disposed in the drying passage, wherein, when the regeneration valve is opened, the heat dissipation coil operates to heat the drying passage.
Frank teaches supplying compressed air for a vehicle (¶2) comprising a heat dissipation coil (40, 40’) configured to heat the adsorbent disposed in the drying passage in order to increase efficiency drying the adsorbent (¶59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drying passage (passage holding 17C) of Kawai by incorporating the heat dissipation coil (¶59) of Frank in order to increase efficiency (¶59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the apparatus such that wherein, when the regeneration valve is opened, the heat dissipation coil operates to heat the drying passage because the heat dries the adsorbent and drying of the adsorbent is desirable only during regeneration. See MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 13, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Kawai further teaches wherein the drying unit further includes: a fixation plate (17b2) disposed at an end portion of the adsorbent, and configured to prevent outflow of the adsorbent and allow the compressed air to flow; and a spring (17d) provided to allow an elastic restoring force for pushing the fixing plate to act to bring the adsorbent accommodated in the drying passage into contact with each other (¶31-32).
Claim 12 is s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Frank as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ming CN109458320 published 12 Mar. 2019 as translated by EPO (hereafter Ming).
Regarding claim 12, Kawai teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Kawai does not teach wherein the drying passage is disposed in parallel in an odd number of at least three, including a first drying passage, a second drying passage, and a third drying passage, and wherein the compressed air sequentially passes through the first drying passage, the second drying passage, and the third drying passage.
Ming teaches compressed gas drying (¶11) wherein the drying passage is disposed in parallel in order to regenerate one adsorbent while drying gas with the other (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drying passage (passage holding adsorbent 17c) by incorporating the multiple parallel drying passages (¶14) of Ming in order to regenerate one adsorbent while drying gas with the other (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drying passage (passage holding adsorbent 17c) by incorporating a first drying passage, a second drying passage, and a third drying passage, and wherein the compressed air sequentially passes through the first drying passage, the second drying passage, and the third drying passage in order to allow two drying passages to regenerate while one drying passage dries gas which allows more regeneration time without interrupting the drying of gas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art is Kawai and Kan. The prior art teaches an actuator comprising a drying unit, a compressing unit, and a storage tank with a valve opening at a predetermined pressure. The prior art does not teach the invention of claim 17 with the additional features of wherein the controller is further configured for: when a pressure of the compressed air in the storage tank approaches a predetermined second pressure value, opening a control valve connected to a control passage branched from the connecting passage, regardless of the opening cycle of the discharge valve.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 27 Mar. 2026:
Applicant argues that the connecting passage 43A of Kawai does not teach the newly amended limitation of wherein the connecting passage is used as a regeneration path so that the compressed air stored in the storage tank is configured to move to the drying unit.
The argument is moot because in light of the claim amendments, the connecting passage 59 of Kawai is identified.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights