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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/28/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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 9-15, 17-18 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 9 recites “a plurality of common-shaft compressors, in each of which the low-stage compressor and the high-stage compressor are integrally configured and respectively connected to an output shaft of a first motor, arranged in parallel to each other on the refrigerant path” which is considered indefinite. The claims originally only require a single low-stage compressor and a single high-stage compressor. The limitation “a plurality of common-shaft compressor” would fit into this limitation, with the low-stage compressor and the high-stage compressor acting as the plurality of common-shaft compressors; however, the claims recite “in each of with” and “arranged in parallel” which makes it unclear how many compressors are required, as best understood and as shown in the specification, a low-stage compressor and a high-stage compressor would be arranged in series. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that there are a plurality of common-shaft compressors required, and at a minimum there two sets of compressors arranged such that a first set of a low-stage compressor and a high-stage compressor are arranged in parallel to a second set of a low-stage compressor and a high-stage compressor each arranged on their own shaft with their own first motor respectively.
Claim 9 recites “the number of common-shaft compressors is larger than the number of the expander-integrated compressor” which is considered indefinite. As claimed there is only one expander-integrated compressor while there are a plurality of common-shaft compressors, and as such, this already provide the condition as claimed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the total number of compressors is required to be configured such that there are more common-shaft compressors than there are expander-integrated compressors.
Claim 10 recites “the first motor”; however, based on the interpretation of claim 9 there are multiple first motors required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that each of the first compressors is common with the second motor.
Claim 17 recites “the first motor”; however, based on the interpretation of claim 9 there are multiple first motors required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to refer equally to each of the first motors.
Claims 10-15, 18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US PG Pub 20160076793), hereinafter referred to as Nakamura and further in view of Ueda (US PG Pub 20180087809), hereinafter referred to as Ueda.
With respect to claim 9, Nakamura (Figure 1) teaches a refrigeration system utilizing a Brayton cycle (Figure 1 cools based on a Brayton cycle) which generates cold using a refrigerant compressed by a compressor unit including a low-stage compressor by a compressor unit including a low-stage compressor, an intermediate-stage compressor, and a high-stage compressor arranged in series with each other on a refrigerant path (compressors 102a, 102b and 102c, paragraphs 50 and 53, which as seen in the figure, the flow path from each compressor is in series through valves V3 and V5, which means that 102a would be a low-stage compressor, 102b would be an intermediate stage and 102c would be a high-stage),
wherein compressor unit include:
a plurality of common-shaft compressors (102a, 102b, 112a, 112b are all common shaft compressors which share a shaft 108a and 118a, respectively, paragraphs 50), in each of which the low-stage is integrally configured and respective connected to an output shaft of a first motor (102a and 112a, which is in the same configuration as 102a with respect to the compression stage, are both low-stage compressors connected to an output shaft of a motor 107a and 117b, paragraph 50), arranged in parallel to each other on the refrigerant path (the two compressors and motors are arranged in parallel, paragraph 50) and
an expander-integrated compressor different form the plurality of common-shaft compressors (102c is connected to expansion turbine 104, paragraph 53) and an expander configured to expand the refrigerant compressed by the compression unit (expansion turbines 104 expands the compressed refrigerant, paragraph 53) are integrally configured and respectively connected to an output shaft of a second motor, the compressor of the expander-integrated compressor being connected in series with the plurality of common-shaft compressors arranged in parallel (the compressor 102c and expander 104 have the motor 107b between them attached by a shaft 108b, paragraph 43),
wherein the number of the plurality of common-shaft compressors is larger than the number of the expander-integrated compressor (there are four common-shaft compressors, 102a/112a/102b/112b and only two expander-driven compressors 102c/112c in Figure 1 of Nakamura).
Nakamura does not teach wherein the plurality of common-shaft compressors each have the high-stage compressor integrally configured and respectively connected to an output shaft of a first motor and the expander-integrated compressor is the intermediate-stage compressor integrally configured and respectively connected to an output shaft of the second motor.
Ueda teaches (Figures 1-2) that in a refrigerant system with a low-stage compressor (C1), middle-stage compressor (C2) and a high-stage compressor (C3) (Paragraph 75) that the low and high-stage compressor are both connected to the same motor and output shaft and the middle-stage compressor is connected to the output shift of the expander turbine (paragraph 77 and 115). Connecting the turbine with the first motor and the compressor (C2) allows for a reduction in the power of the first motor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ueda to have had the high-stage compressors (102c/112c) attached to the shafts (108a/118a) that the low-stage compressors are attached to and had the middle-stage compressors (102b/112b) attached to the shafts (108b/118b) that the expansion turbines are attached to since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, whereby both methods of compressor and motor integration are known (common shaft having intermediate/turbine shaft having high and common shaft having high/turbine shaft having intermediate) and are done for the same reason (efficiency increase, paragraph 75 of Nakamura) it would have been obvious to have used the configuration as claimed as carrying out such a substitution would result in the reasonably predictable result of achieving a similar reduction in power (achieving a similar increase in efficiency) that is achieved by using the turbine to drive the high-stage turbine.
With respect to claim 13, Nakamura as modified teahces wherein the refrigerant path includes: a bypass line connecting upstream and downstream sides of the compressor of the expander-integrated compressor to bypass the compressor (via valve V6, refrigerant can bypass 102c passing from upstream of it through the valve to downstream of it via 112c, paragraph 60), and a bypass valve disposed on the bypass line (valve V6 is a bypass valve of compressor 102c).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura/Ueda and further in view of Ozu et al. (US PG Pub 20170284706), hereinafter referred to as Ozu.
With respect to claim 10, Nakamura does not teach wherein the first motor and the second motor are common.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ozu to have in Nakamura as modified for each of the motors provided to have been variable-frequency motors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby variable-frequency motors would provide as would be common knowledge in the art of the benefit of precise control of the compressors which would maintain or be able to control and adjust the fluid passing through the compressors as desired. As they are all variable frequency drive motors, they would have at least one specification that is the same and as such can be considered common.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura/Ueda and further in view of Okaichi et al. (US PG Pub 20130036757), hereinafter referred to as Okaichi.
With respect to claim 11, Nakamura teaches further comprising a control device for controlling the plurality of common shaft compressors (a controller is used to control the valves, paragraph 62, which would control the compressors by shutting off fluid flow to them, paragraph 59).
Nakamura as modified does not teach wherein the control device is configured to control the plurality of common-shaft compressors to operate some of the plurality of common-shaft compressors, based on a temperature of the refrigerant at an inlet of the expander at startup of the refrigeration system.
Okaichi teaches that an activation detector can be used for providing a signal to a controller which can operate based on temperatures detected at the suction and discharge of an expander. The activation detector provides a response such to activate a compressor in response to activation of the expander (paragraphs 64 and 65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Okachi providing an activation detector which in response to the measurement of temperatures at the suction (inlet) and discharge of the expander of Nakamura provided a signal to the controller to activate a compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing this configuration would provide what is common knowledge in the art that providing this type of control to a compressor would provide automatic control so that each component does not have to be manually activated which would allow for optimization of performance and increase in efficiency of operation.
With respect to claim 12, Nakamura as modified does not teach wherein the control device is configured to perform control to decrease a rotational speed of an operating compressor and then control to change the number of operating compressors of the plurality of common-shaft compressors.
Okaichi teaches that when a refrigeration cycle is to be stopped the rotational speed of a compressor is progressively reduced and then stopped (paragraph 103). The motor which drives the compressor is controlled by the controller (117)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to have when stopping the operation of the refrigeration cycle of Nakamura to have based on the teaching of Okaichi to have first decreased the speed of a compressor before stopping it (which is a change to number of operating compressors) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby reducing the speed of operation before stopping a compressor would provide what is common knowledge in the art of prevention from damage by allowing the compressor to be turned down before shutting off as opposed to shutting off from full speed.
With respect to claims 14, Nakamura does not teach wherein the bypass valve is configured to set a flow rate of the refrigerant in the compressor of the expander-integrated compressor to a predetermined value or more, based on a temperature of the refrigerant at an inlet of the expander.
Okaichi teaches that an activation detector can be used for providing a signal to a controller which can operate based on temperatures detected at the suction and discharge of an expander. The activation detector provides a response such to activate a compressor in response to activation of the expander. In addition, an on-off valve is provided on a line causing high pressure fluid to flow back to the inlet of an expander driven compressor instead of flowing to the expander such that during activation the refrigerant flows from the outlet of the high-pressure compressor to the inlet of the low-pressure compressor and after the compressor is activate the line is closed (paragraphs 62-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Okaichi operated the valve of Nakamura as modified as claimed in claim 13 that is to be open during activations driven by temperatures including those at the inlet of the expander so that during start up fluid is recycled prevented (bypassing) from passing to the expander and is initially cycled back to the inlet of the compressor from between the compressor and the expander until the compressor is activated in order to provide smooth transfer to control in regular operation of the recycle system (paragraph 64 of Okaichi). This modification is to provide control to the compressor using a valve on a line which bypasses the expander using the operation as described in Okaichi (paragraph 64).
With respect to claim 15, Nakamura as modified teaches wherein a rotational speed of the compressor or the expander-integrated compressor is controlled in cooperation with an opening degree of the bypass valve so that a cooling rate of the refrigerant is substantially constant (at activation, the valve is opened, and then the compressor is started up, which is a control of its rotational speed, and then when activated the valve is closed to provide regular operation, which can result in a cool rate of the refrigerant that is constant as it is normal operation).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura/Ueda and further in view of Lapp et al. (US PG Pub 20140360210), hereinafter referred to as Lapp and Wang (US PG Pub 20180238924), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
With respect to claim 17, Nakamura doe not teach wherein the first motor and the second motor each include output shifts having the same diameters as each other.
Lapp teaches that using a large shaft allows for increased radial stiffness and enhanced compressor operation by elevating critical speed to higher than the shaft will operate at (Paragraph 52).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have designed all of the motors of Nakamura as modified with large radial shafts that are the same dimension based on the teaching of Lapp in order to enhance compressor operations as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby there are only two possible configurations, one where the diameters are different and one where they are the same it would have been obvious to have had them all be the same as it would have been obvious to have set them each to the same diameter so that they can each have the same critical speed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nakamura as modified does not teach the first motor and the second motor each include bearings supporting the output shafts having the same specifications as each other.
Lapp teaches that using large bore bearings provides radial stiffness which enhances compressor operations by elevating critical speeds (paragraph 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lapp to have provided the radial shafts of Nakamura as modified with large bore bearings to enhance compressor operations through the radial stiffness of the bearings. As all the bearings are large bore bearings, they can be considered in view of the interpretation of the claims to have the same specifications.
Nakamura as modified does not teach the first and second motor include motor casings having the same specifications as each other.
Wang teaches that a motor casing can be generally cylindrical (paragraph 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided all of the motors of Nakamura as modified with a generally cylindrical motor casing based on the teaching of Wang since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a cylindrical casing would as would be common knowledge in the art minimize the overall dimension of the motor housing by matching it to the dimension of the motor which would likely be cylindrical in this type of system. As all of the motors have a generally cylindrical motor housing, they can be considered in view of the interpretation of the claims to have the same specifications as each other.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura/Ueda and further in view of Siefring (US PG Pub 20210048037), hereinafter referred to as Siefring.
With respect to claim 18, Nakamura does not teach wherein among the plurality of common-shaft compressors and the compressor of the expander-integrated compressor at least two compressors having impellers with different shapes from each other; and at least two compressors having compressor impeller casings with different specifications from each other.
Siefring teaches that the impeller of a compressor in a cooling system has a plurality of blades which shape can be an airfoil blade, backward curved blade, perpendicular blade or a radial blade (paragraph 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have based on the teaching Siefring for the compressors of Nakamura to have been a centrifugal compressor with impellers with blades chosen from between airfoil blades, backward curved blades, perpendicular blades or radial blades since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that centrifugal compressor have good energy efficiency. Further, as there are multiple known types of impeller shape based on blade shape it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for each compressor to have had had different impeller blades (and thus a different impeller shape) as it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solution to yield predictable results is obvious and whereby each type of blade is known, only two options exist, one in which they all have the same blade (and thus impeller shape) or one in which they all have differing blade types (and thus impeller shape type) with the reasonable expectation of success by providing each compressor with a known impeller type. Further, as two impellers have different shapes, two of the impeller casings would have different specifications as they would have to accommodate the different shapes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamura in view of Ueda.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights