DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 9 and 11 – 15 are pending and currently being examined.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “cooling device” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and further in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First annotated Figure 1 of Karube
PNG
media_image2.png
658
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second annotated Figure 1 of Karube
In Re Claim 1, Karube discloses an electric centrifugal compressor (Figure 3; Column 5, Lines 55 – 56 state that the gas is compressed; although “electric” is not explicitly stated, one skilled in the art would recognize that stator 4 and rotor 3 form an electric motor; although “centrifugal” is not explicitly stated, one skilled in the art would recognize centrifugal displacement by the impeller 1 from the axial inlet 9 to the radial outlet 10), comprising: an electric motor (3, 4) including a rotational shaft (2); a first impeller (1) disposed on one end side of the rotational shaft (2); a first bearing (5) rotatably supporting the rotational shaft (2) at a position between the first impeller (1) and the electric motor (3, 4) and including a lubricant (Column 2, Lines 64 – 65); and a first bearing housing (60, 63; Column 6, Lines 58 – 60; Figure 1) accommodating the first bearing (5), wherein the first bearing housing (60, 63) includes a compressed gas supply hole (63b; the “blowout gas” must have pressure to perform the disclosed function in Column 9, Lines 32 – 36; Figure 5) for supplying a compressed gas (“blowout gas” in Column 9, Lines 32 – 36) from outside of the first bearing housing (60, 63) to a gap (see Figure 5) between a rotating body (66, 2) including the rotational shaft (2) and the first bearing housing (60, 63), and wherein an outlet of the compressed gas supply hole (63b) is disposed on an inner surface of the first bearing housing (60, 63; inner surface of 63 – see Figure 5) and is located between the first impeller (1) and the first bearing (5) in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (2), wherein the electric centrifugal compressor further comprises: a first seal element (642; Column 9, Lines 56 – 59) disposed so as to seal the gap at a position between the first impeller (1) and the outlet of the compressed gas supply hole (63b) in the axial direction; and a second seal element (641; Column 9, Lines 56 – 59) disposed so as to seal the gap at a position between the outlet of the compressed gas supply hole (63b) and the first bearing (5) in the axial direction, wherein the first bearing housing includes an annular space (see black shaded area in the first annotated figure 1 above), the annular space communicating with a region (see black shaded area in the second annotated figure 1 above) between the second seal member (641) and the first bearing (5), wherein the first bearing housing includes a purge hole (62) for discharging the compressed gas supplied from the compressed gas supply hole (63b) to the gap to outside (Column 9, Lines 39 – 40: “discharged by the vacuum exhaust device”; Column 9, Line 3: “discharged from the apparatus”) of the first bearing housing (follow the flow arrows in Figure 5), and wherein an inlet (63a, i.e. at the beginning of passage 60a) of the purge hole (62) is disposed on the inner surface of the first bearing housing (see Figure 5) and is located between the second seal element (641) and the first bearing (5) in the axial direction and communicates with the annular space (see black shaded area in the first annotated figure 1 above) (Column 1, Line 51 – Column 2, Line 5; Column 2, Lines 64 – 65; Column 6, Lines 58 – 60; Column 9, Lines 32 – 36 and 56 – 59; Figures 1, 3, 5).
Karube does not disclose a cooling device in an air introduction line connected to the inlet.
However, Figure 2 of Lehman discloses a compressed gas introduction line (18) which introduces gas compressed by the blower (since it is connected to the pressure side of the blower – Column 2, Lines 17 – 18) to the inlet of the compressed gas supply hole (junction between 17 and 18) which leads to a gap (17) between rotating body (1) and bearing housing (3, 5, 6; Column 4, Lines 4 – 6), a cooling device (20) provided in the compressed gas introduction line (18) for cooling the compressed gas (Column 2, Lines 19 – 20). Although Karube does not disclose the gas being introduced in the centrifugal compressor being air, the teachings of Lehman can be applied to any type gas-using compressor like the one disclosed by Karube. Further, the type of gas does not further structurally limit the claimed compressor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a cooling device as taught by Lehman in the gas introduction line leading to the inlet of the compressed gas supply hole (63b) of Karube for the purpose of advantageously cooling the sealing elements, shaft and any other exposed elements in the region (Column 2, Lines 52 – 57 of Karube).
Although Karube discloses an annular space, Karube and Lehman do not disclose a biasing spring disposed in the annular space and configured to bias the first bearing to a side opposite to the first impeller.
However, Martin discloses a biasing spring (52) disposed in an annular space (the space occupied by 52 is an annular space surrounding shaft 30) adjacent to first bearing (48), the spring (52) is configured to bias the first bearing (48) to a side opposite to the first impeller (26)(Column 3, Line 62 – Column 4, Line 2; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the wavy washer (52) as taught by Martin in the annular space adjacent to the first bearing of Karube in the apparatus of Karube / Lehman for the purpose of insuring contact between all of the balls and the ball races of the bearing which results in smoother, quieter operation (Column 4, Lines 2 – 5 of Martin).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Karube further discloses a negative pressure pump (42) for sucking gas out of the purge hole (62)(Column 6, Lines 12 – 23; Figure 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Taniyama (US Patent 4,734,018 A).
In Re Claim 3, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a third seal element.
However, Figure 2 of Taniyama discloses three seal elements (each labeled 15, compressed gas supply hole 14 is between the top two sealing elements 15, and there is a third sealing element 15 below 11 between the second sealing element 15 and the bearing 6)(Column 3, Lines 8 – 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a third seal element as taught by Taniyama between the second seal element and bearing of Karube / Lehman / Martin for the purpose of enhancing the sealing effect by creating multiple sealing zones, and because it has been held that a mere duplication of parts (duplicating the second seal element and placing third seal element generated by duplication adjacent the second seal element) is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, VI-B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Leicht (US Patent 4,447,062 A).
In Re Claim 4, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose that the introduction line produces a pressure in the gap that is higher than a pressure in the back surface of the first impeller.
However, Lecht discloses a compressed gas introduction line (18) configured to introduce the compressed gas (“blocking gas”) to an inlet of the compressed gas supply hole (19) so that a pressure in a space of the gap (17) between the first seal element (16) and the second seal element (15) is larger than (since it prevents the gas adjacent the back surface of the impeller from penetrating into the bearing region – Column 2, Lines 21 – 24) a pressure in a space of the gap (24) adjacent to a back surface of the first impeller (11)(Column 2, Lines 1 – 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to introduce the compressed gas of Karube / Lehman / Martin into the gap at a blocking gas pressure that is larger than a pressure in a space adjacent to the back surface of the impeller as taught by Lecht for the purpose of completely isolating the bearing from potential contaminants in the gas.
Claim(s) 5 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Zagar (US Patent 3,137,237 A).
In Re Claim 5, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a lip seal between the second seal element and the first bearing.
However, Figure 4 of Zagar discloses a lip seal (120, 125, 126, 128) disposed so as to seal a gap (between 127 and 132 when the electromagnet is activated) between a rotating body (62’, 25’) including rotating shaft (25’) and the first bearing housing (26’) for the first bearing (30)(Column 5, Line 62 – Column 6, Line 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the lip seal (120, 125, 126, 128) adjacent the first bearing (30) as taught by Zagar between the second seal element and the first bearing of Karube / Lehman / Martin for the purpose of providing a good mechanical seal while the pump is not rotating (Column 1, Lines 47 – 52 of Zagar).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Zagar further discloses that a base end portion (adjacent 121/122) of the lip seal (120) is fixed to the first bearing housing (26’), and a tip end portion (126) of the lip seal (120) is configured to come into contact (at 132) with an outer peripheral surface of the rotating body (62’/25’ adjacent to 132)(Column 6, Lines 7 – 11; Figure 4).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 6, and Zagar further discloses an electromagnet (130) for separating the tip end portion (126) of the lip seal (120) from the outer peripheral surface of the rotating body (62’/25’ adjacent to 132)(Column 6, Lines 12 – 15; Figure 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and in view of Zagar (US Patent 3,137,237 A) and further in view of Copeland (PG Pub US 20170058697 A1).
In Re Claim 8, Karube, Lehman, Martin and Zagar disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and the examiner first contends that Zagar further discloses a power supply unit (this is an essential part of any conventional electromagnet) configured to apply current to the electromagnet (Column 6, Lines 12 – 13: “the circuit is closed to the electromagnet”); a rotational speed sensor for measuring rotational speed of the rotational shaft (there is an implicit means for detecting whether the main pump motor is started and when the pump motor is shut off {Column 6, Lines 12 and 15}, the means is therefore capable of measuring zero speed and non-zero speed); and a power supply control part for controlling the power supply unit (a decision is made to close the circuit or de-energize the electromagnet, which implies a power supply control part), wherein the power supply control part is configured to apply current to the electromagnet (by closing the circuit, Column 6, Lines 12 – 19), based on the rotational speed of the rotational shaft measured by the rotational speed sensor (when a non zero speed is measured - the current is applied by closing the circuit, when zero speed is measured - the current is stopped). Alternatively, if it not clear to applicant that a rotational speed sensor is disclosed (not admitted to):
However, Copeland discloses a power supply unit (630) configured to apply current to the electromagnet (180/190); a rotational speed sensor (610) for measuring rotational speed of the rotational shaft; and a power supply control part (620) for controlling the power supply unit (630), wherein the power supply control part (620) is configured to apply current to the electromagnet (180/190), based on the rotational speed of the rotational shaft measured by the rotational speed sensor (when the super critical shaft speed is reached, the electromagnet is energized) (Figure 5; paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the broadly disclosed power supply unit, rotational speed sensor, power supply control part of Zagar in the apparatus of Karube / Lehman / Martin / Zagar with the specifically disclosed power supply unit, rotational speed sensor, power supply control part of Copeland, because the results of the substitution are predictable – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and in view of Zagar (US Patent 3,137,237 A) and Copeland (PG Pub US 20170058697 A1) and further in view of Huntzicker (US Patent 2,092,351 A) and as evidenced by Keba (PG Pub US 20050248093 A1).
In Re Claim 9, Karube, Lehman, Martin, Zagar and Copeland disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and the examiner first contends that the claimed limitations are manner of operating the electromagnet which does not structurally distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2114-II). Alternatively if the combined references above do not disclose applying current when the speed exceeds a reference value (not admitted to):
However, Huntzicker discloses automatically opening a sealing means when the shaft speed exceeds a reference speed (”below predetermined speed”) and closing the sealing means when the shaft speed falls below a reference speed (Page 3, Column 1, Line 73 – Page 3, Column 2, Line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to operate the apparatus of Karube / Lehman / Martin / Zagar / Copeland such that the seal is opened (i.e. applying current to the electromagnet of Zagar) when the speed exceeds a reference value as taught by Huntzicker and the seal is closed when the speed is otherwise as taught by Huntzicker for the purpose of minimizing the heat and wear on the seal assembly as evidenced by Keba in paragraph [0008].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Menager (US Patent 4,380,416 A).
In Re Claim 11, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Karube discloses an inner ring (501), an outer ring (502), a plurality of rolling elements (“ball” – Column 2, Lines 3 – 4; also see depicted balls in Figure 1) held between the inner ring and the outer ring (as depicted) but they do not disclose seal plates.
However, Figure 1 of Menager discloses a pair of annular seal plates (9) located on both sides of the rolling elements in the axial direction and held by the outer ring (3), an annular gap (this is the gap that would be present when 9a is omitted as disclosed in Column 2, Lines 54 – 55) is formed radially inward of an annular seal plate (9 on the left) of the pair of annular seal plates closer to the first impeller (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a pair of annular seal plates as taught by Menager between the inner and outer ring of the first bearing of Karube / Lehman / Martin for the purpose of shielding the interior of the bearing.
In the modified apparatus, Menager discloses that the first bearing housing (1) for first bearing (3) includes a purge hole (8), and a seal plate gap (annular space present radially interior of 9 when 9a is omitted), wherein a path cross-sectional area of the purge hole (8) is larger than a cross-sectional area (area of the annular space) of the seal plate gap perpendicular to the axial direction as depicted.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Akiyama (Japanese Patent JP 2008057452 A, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 10/17/23).
In Re Claim 13, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and the examiner first contends that the claimed limitation is a manner of operation of the vacuum pump which does not structurally distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2114-II). Alternatively if it is not clear to applicant that the vacuum pump of Karube is configured to operate when the electric motor is stopped (not admitted to):
However, Akiyama discloses a negative pressure pump (“vacuum pump’) for sucking a gas out of a purge hole (544) (Figures 4 – 6; paragraphs [0035],[0037],[0038)) and a pump control part (180; paragraph [0049], not disclosed in the Figures) for controlling the negative pressure pump (it is described as a “control device”), wherein the pump control part is configured to operate the negative pressure pump when the electric motor (506) is stopped (paragraph [0038], Lines 441 – 444 disclose that the pressure is reduced by the vacuum pump “in advance” of startup, which means the electric motor is not running.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to configure the vacuum pump of Karube / Lehman / Martin such that it is configured to operate when the electric motor is stopped as taught by Akiyama for the purpose of removing potential preexisting contaminants before the apparatus is put into service.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube (US Patent 5,856,992 A) in view of Lehman (US Patent 3,356,290 A) and in view of Martin (US Patent 3,847,504 A) and further in view of Pesola (PG Pub US 20070036662 A1).
In Re Claim 14, Karube, Lehman and Martin disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, but they do not disclose a multistage compressor.
However, Pesola discloses a two stage electric compressor (Figure 3; motor 15 is between the two stages) comprising a first impeller (8), second impeller (21) disposed on opposite sides of the rotational shaft (from 15’ – 15” – paragraphs [0023], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the compressor of Karube / Lehman / Martin to be a two stage compressor as taught by Pesola because a two stage compressor compared to a single stage compressor achieves higher pressures with less energy consumption leading to longer component life and less maintenance.
In the modified apparatus, the details of the first stage of Karube would also be present in the added second stage of Pesola, therefore Karube also discloses a second bearing (5) rotatably supporting the rotational shaft (2) at a position between the second impeller (1) and the electric motor (3, 4) and including a lubricant (Column 2, Lines 64 – 65); and a second bearing housing (60, 63; Column 6, Lines 58 – 60; Figure 1) accommodating the second bearing (5), wherein the second bearing housing (60, 63; Column 6, Lines 58 – 60; Figure 1) includes a compressed gas supply hole (63b) for supplying a compressed gas to a gap (see Figure 5) between the rotating body (66, 2) and the second bearing housing (60, 63; Column 6, Lines 58 – 60; Figure 1), and wherein an outlet of the compressed gas supply hole (63b) of the second bearing housing is located between the second impeller (1) and the second bearing (5) in the axial direction (see Figure 5).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 14, and Figure 3 of Pesola discloses a low-pressure-stage housing (paragraph [0023]: “low-pressure scroll”) accommodating the first impeller (8); a high-pressure-stage housing (paragraph [0028]: “high-pressure scroll”) accommodating the second impeller (21); and a connecting pipe (24) for supplying a compressed gas compressed by the first impeller (8) to the high-pressure-stage housing, wherein the high-pressure-stage housing has a high-pressure-stage inlet opening (42) that opens in a direction intersecting an axis (“A”) of the rotational shaft (paragraph [0023]: “shaft of an electric motor”), and wherein the connecting pipe (24) is connected to the high-pressure-stage inlet opening (42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746