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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-23, 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-26 of copending Application No. 18276603 in view of Ueda et al. (US PG Pub 20180087809), hereinafter referred to as Ueda.
With respect to claim 13, the co-pending claim 14 teaches the entirety of the present claim except for the presence of controlling the rotational speed of the compression stages in accordance with independent speeds, wherein, during at least one determined operating phase, the rotational speed of the compression stages in series that do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas such as a heat exchanger for exchanging heat between them is kept at a speed lower than the rotational speed of the compression stages that are provided at their outlet with a member for cooling the cycle gas.
Ueda teaches that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158).
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 the individual compressors as controlled by the motors of the co-pending claim operated at unique motor rotation speeds (which would be the rotational speed of the compressor) to save energy and improve the performance of the refrigerator. While there is a not a specific teaching of any compressor having a higher or lower speed than any other as they are operated at unique speeds at least two compressors would be operating at a lower speed than two other compressors. Further, as there are only three compressors present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the compression stages which do not have an aftercooler between them to operate at a lower speed than the compression stages which has an aftercooler after it as it has been held obvious to try whereby choosing between a finite number of predictable solutions is obvious. As there are only three compressors all of which are shown to be obvious to operate at rotational speeds, determining which compressors operate at the higher and lower speeds respectively would be limited to only the conditions of: the compressor where the compressors without an aftercooler between them operate at a higher speed than a compressor with an aftercooler after it, the compressor where the compressors without an aftercooler between them operate at a lower speed than a compressor with an aftercooler after it, or the compressor with an aftercooler after it operates at a speed between the compressors which do not have an aftercooler between them. Thus, choosing between the three conditions would have been obvious and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in operating the compressors with the speeds in the configuration as claimed if that resulted in the optimal conditions of operation to maximizes refrigerating performance.
In view of the rejection above, the following claims are also rejected in view of the co-pending claims:
Present Claim Co-Pending Claim
14 15
15 16
16 17
17 18
19 20
20 21
22 23
23 24
Further, claims 13 and 30 are also both rejected in view of claim 26 of the co-pending claim in that they are entirely encompassed by the limitations of the co-pending claim. Although claim 26 of the co-pending claim does not specifically recite an “electronic monitoring and control member” as there is a method in which controlling occurs, the limitation is met as that can be considered to satisfy the limitation as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 13-23, 26-30 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 13 recites first “the compression mechanism comprising a plurality of compression stages in series” and then later recites “wherein the compression mechanism comprise at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them” and then later recites “during at least one determined operating phase, the rotational speed of the at least two compression stages that are deposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them it kept at a speed lower than the rotational speed of the compression stages that are each provided, at their outlet, with a member for cooling the cycle gas” which last limitation is indefinite. The claims initially only require a plurality of compression stages, but then the last limitation appears to require three compression stages, which is a narrower limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further the claims first require that the two compression stages without an a cooler between them operate at a lower speed than a compression stage which has a cooler after it; however, as claimed, the claims do not preclude and arguably require that each compression stage has a cooler after it except the claimed lacking one which means that even if there is no cooler between the two compression stages, the second of those compression stages would have a cooler after it which makes it both unclear how many compression stages are required and which compression stage is required to operate at a lower speed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered that the compression stage which has no cooler after it is required to be operated at a speed lower than a compression stage which has a cooler after it under the condition when there are only two compression stages present.
Claim 16 recites “the set of motors comprises a plurality of motors” which is considered indefinite, as “a set of motors” requires a plurality of motors. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims.
Claim 30 recites first “a plurality of centrifugal compression stages arranged in series” and then later recites “wherein the compression mechanism comprise at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have an inter-stage cooling member located therebetween” and then later recites “during at least one determined operating phase, the rotational speed of the at least two compression stages that are deposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them it kept at a speed lower than the rotational speed of the compression stages that are each provided, at their outlet, with a member for cooling the cycle gas” which last limitation is indefinite. The claims initially only require a plurality of compression stages, but then the last limitation appears to require three compression stages, which is a narrower limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further the claims first require that the two compression stages without an a cooler between them operate at a lower speed than a compression stage which has a cooler after it; however, as claimed, the claims do not preclude and arguably require that each compression stage has a cooler after it except the claimed lacking one which means that even if there is no cooler between the two compression stages, the second of those compression stages would have a cooler after it which makes it both unclear how many compression stages are required and which compression stage is required to operate at a lower speed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered that the compression stage which has no cooler after it is required to be operated at a speed lower than a compression stage which has a cooler after it under the condition when there are only two compression stages present.
Claims 14-15, 17-23, 26-29 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already requires “a set of motors” which is understood to be more than one motor and therefore the limitation of “a plurality of motors” in claim 16 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
While claims 19 and 20 use the terms “attached to the outlet” and “attached to the inlet” it is understood that this does not mean a direct attachment between the bypass pipe and the outlet/inlet of the compression stage, only that the bypass pipe provides attachment from and to the outlet of the compressor and the inlet of the compressor respectively.
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:
member for collecting in claims 13 understood to be a store (which is understood to be any kind of storage),
expanding mechanism in claims 13 understood to be a turbine,
a heating member in claim 13 understood to be a path in a heat exchanger,
at least one member for cooling in claim 22 understood to be a heat exchanger,
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.
Compression mechanism in claim 13 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
Cooling member in claim 13 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
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.
Claim(s) 13-17, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US PG Pub 20220221220), hereinafter referred to as Thomas and further in view of Marcuccilli et al. (US PG Pub 20230160632), hereinafter referred to as Marcuccilli and Cardella et al. (US PG Pub 20180347897), Cardella and Ueda et al. (US PG Pub 20180087809), hereinafter referred to as Ueda.
With respect to claim 13, Thomas (Figure 1) teaches a method for refrigerating or liquefying a fluid using a device for refrigerating or liquefying a fluid, the method comprising the steps of:
providing the device that is comprised of:
a circuit for fluid to be cooled having an upstream end configured to be connected to a source of gaseous fluid and a downstream end configured to be connected to a member for collecting the fluid when cooled or liquefied (hydrogen feed gas stream 100, paragraph 26, would come from a source as it enters the system and is cooled and ultimately collected in storage tank 392, paragraph 36,
a set of heat exchanger(s) in heat exchange with the circuit for fluid to be cooled (heat exchangers 302 and 325, paragraph 29-32)
a refrigerator in heat exchange with at least part of the set of heat exchanger(s), the refrigerator configured to perform a refrigeration cycle on a cycle gas having a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol (a refrigerant cycle that can be just hydrogen or helium is used in one of the heat exchangers, paragraph 32, both of which have a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol)
said refrigerator comprising the following, disposed in series in a cycle circuit:
a compression mechanism configured to compress the cycle gas (multi-stage compressor including 382, 384, paragraph 35),
at least one cooling member configured to cool the cycle gas (one of the air coolers 378 or 380, paragraph 44),
an expanding mechanism configured to expand the cycle gas (expander 377, paragraph 34, which as it drives 375 would be a turbine),
and at least one heating member configured to heat the expanded cycle gas (the passageway in 325 that stream 364 is heated in, paragraph 34),
wherein the compression mechanism comprises a plurality of compression stages in series (stages 382 and 384 are a plurality of stages),
the at least one cooling member comprises at least one heat exchanger disposed at the outlet of at least one compression stage in heat exchange with the cycle circuit (378 or 380 are at an outlet of a compression stages),
said heat exchanger being cooled by a heat transfer fluid (air is the heat exchange fluid used in 378 and 380, paragraph 35), circulating a fluid in the circuit for fluid to be cooled and a step of cooling said fluid via the cold produced by the refrigerator (hydrogen enters at 100, passes through the circuit and leaves when it enters 392).
Thomas does not teach the compression stages are a set of compressors of centrifugal type.
Marcuccilli teaches that in a refrigeration device for a working circuit of refrigerant fluid that has multi stage compression has multiple compressors (each compressor 14, 16, 18) can be a centrifugal compressor (paragraph 28).
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 Marcuccilli for the compression stages of Thomas to have been centrifugal compressors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art centrifugal compressors are known to be suitable for a cryogenic refrigeration system as they have a high reliability that operate efficiently.
Thomas does not teach the compressors being mounted on a set of shafts driven in rotation by a set of motor(s). While a single motor is shown in Figure 1, there is also only one shaft shown.
Further, Marcuccilli teaches that each compressor has a separate motor driven by a shaft between them (20, 22, 24 driving 14, 16, 18) (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for each compressor of Thomas have been driven by a separate motor via a shaft since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing separate motors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the ability to provide more control to the cooling system by allowing each compressor to be individually adjusted by its respective dedicated motor which could provide for more efficient operation.
Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them.
Cardella teaches that a compressor can be designed without gas intercoolers and aftercoolers with reduces the capital cost (paragraph 136).
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 Cardella to have designed at least one of the compressors of Thomas without a cooler (378 or 380) to reduce the overall capital cost of the system. While this is not a specific teaching of which cooler to remove, a teaching has been provided both that aftercoolers are known and it is known to not use them. As such, having an aftercooler missing between the two compression stages would have been obvious to try as it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby based on the teachings of Cardella and Thomas it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have not had an cooler (378) between two of the compression stages since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
Thomas does not teach controlling the rotational speed of the compression stages according to independent speeds, wherein, during at least one determined operating phase, the rotational speed of the at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them is kept at a speed lower than the rotational speed of the compression stages that are each provided, at their outlet, with a member for cooling the cycle gas.
Ueda teaches that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158).
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 the individual compressors as controlled by the motors of Thomas as modified operated at unique motor rotation speeds (which would be the rotational speed of the compressor) with a controller to monitor the compressors to save energy and improve the performance of the refrigerator. While there is a not a specific teaching of any compressor having a higher or lower speed than any other as they are operated at unique speeds at least two compressors would be operating at a lower speed than two other compressors. Further, as there are only two compressors present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the compression stage which does not have a cooler after them to operate at a lower speed than the compression stage which has a cooler after it as it has been held obvious as it has been held obvious to try whereby choosing between a finite number of predictable solutions is obvious. As there are only two compression stages all of which are shown to be obvious to operate at rotational speeds, determining which compressors operate at the higher and lower speeds respectively would be limited to only the conditions of: the compression stage without a cooler after it operates at a higher speed than a compressor with a cooler after it, the compression stage without an aftercooler after it operates at a lower speed than a compressor with a cooler after it. Thus, choosing between the two conditions would have been obvious and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in operating the compressors with the speeds in the configuration as claimed if that resulted in the optimal conditions of operation to maximizes refrigerating performance.
With respect to claim 14, Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises four compression stages in series.
Marcuccilli teaches that while three compressors are shown, more generally any number of compressor stages are may be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had four compressors instead of two in Thomas based on the teaching of Marcuccilli as it has been shown that a mere duplication of parts (having two more compressors) has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby having four compressors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of either reducing size of the compressors used to provide the final compression or allowing for a higher pressure for the refrigerant.
Thomas further does not teach the member for cooling the cycle gas comprising heat exchanger comprising three cooling heat exchangers that are disposed respectively at the outlet of three of these four compression stages, specifically between the first and second compression stage, between the second and third compression stage, and at the outlet of the fourth compression stage.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas as modified and Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in the rejection of claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having four compressors in Thomas as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had the third compressor not have an cooler since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an cooler between the third and fourth stage would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
With respect to claim 15, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the cooling heat exchangers are disposed solely every two compression stages in series.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas as modified and Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having four compressors in Thomas as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had an aftercooler only after the second compressor in series of Thomas as modified since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
With respect to claim 16, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the assembly of motor(s) comprises multiple motors for driving the compression stages (as modified multiple motors are present).
With respect to claim 17, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the assembly of motor(s) comprises a separate respective motor for each compression stage (as modified each stage has its own motor).
With respect to claim 26, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the fluid comprises hydrogen (hydrogen is the fluid at 100).
With respect to claim 27, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the cycle gas comprise at least one of helium or hydrogen (the cycle gas can be hydrogen or helium, paragraph 43).
With respect to claim 28, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the cycle gas is made of up pure helium (as modified the cycle gas can be hydrogen/neon, hydrogen or helium, paragraph 43, which would be understood to be that it can be just helium).
With respect to claim 29, Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises four compression stages in series.
Marcuccilli teaches that while three compressors are shown, more generally any number of compressor stages are may be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had four compressors instead of three in Thomas based on the teaching of Marcuccilli as it has been shown that a mere duplication of parts (having two more compressors) has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby having four compressors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of either reducing size of the compressors used to provide the final compression or allowing for a higher pressure for the refrigerant.
Thomas as modified further does not teach the cooling members are disposed solely at the outlet of the first, second and fourth compression stages.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas and Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in the rejection of claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having four compressors in Thomas as modified as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had third compressor not have an aftercooler since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between the third and fourth stage would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
With respect to claim 30, Thomas teaches (Figure 1) a method for refrigerating or liquefying a fluid, the method comprising:
circulating the fluid in a fluid circuit configured to be cooled, wherein the fluid comprises hydrogen (hydrogen feed gas stream 100, paragraph 26, would come from a source as it enters the system and is cooled and ultimately collected in storage tank 392, paragraph 36);
cooling said fluid in the fluid circuit via cold produced by a refrigerator, the refrigerator operating a refrigeration cycle on a cycle gas having a molar mass less than 10 g/mol (a refrigerant cycle that can be just hydrogen or helium is used in one of the heat exchangers, paragraph 32, both of which have a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol),
the compressing the cycle gas in a compression mechanism comprising a plurality of compression stages arranged in series (multi-stage compressor including 382, 384, 386, paragraph 35)
cooling the cycle gas at an outlet of at least one of the compression stages with at least one outlet heat exchanger (one of the air coolers 378 or 380, paragraph 44), said outlet heat exchanger being cooled by a heat transfer fluid (air is the heat exchange fluid used in 378 and 380, paragraph 35).
Thomas does not teach the compression stages are centrifugal compression stages.
Marcuccilli teaches that in a refrigeration device for a working circuit of refrigerant fluid that has multi stage compression has multiple compressors (each compressor 14, 16, 18) can be a centrifugal compressor (paragraph 28).
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 Marcuccilli for the compression stages of Thomas to have been centrifugal compressors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art centrifugal compressors are known to be suitable for a cryogenic refrigeration system as they have a high reliability that operate efficiently.
Thomas as modified does not teach the compression stages being mounted on a set of shafts rotationally driven by a set of motors.
Further, Marcuccilli teaches that each compressor has a separate motor driven by a shaft between them (20, 22, 24 driving 14, 16, 18) (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for each compressor of Thomas as modified to have been driven by a separate motor via a shaft since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing separate motors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the ability to provide more control to the cooling system by allowing each compressor to be individually adjusted by its respective dedicated motor which could provide for more efficient operation.
Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the compression mechanism includes at least two compression stages arranged successively in series without any inter-stage cooling member located therebetween.
Cardella teaches that a compressor can be designed without gas intercoolers and aftercoolers with reduces the capital cost (paragraph 136).
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 Cardella to have designed at least one of the compressors of Thomas without a cooler (378 or 380) to reduce the overall capital cost of the system. While this is not a specific teaching of which cooler to remove, a teaching has been provided both that aftercoolers are known and it is known to not use them. As such, having an aftercooler missing between the two compression stages would have been obvious to try as it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby based on the teachings of Cardella and Thomas it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have not had an cooler (378) between two of the compression stages since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
Thomas as modified does not teach controlling a rotational speed of the compression stages according to independent speeds, wherein, during at least one determined operating phase, a rotational speed of the at least two compression stages arranged successively in series without any inter-stage cooling member located therebetween is maintained at a speed lower than a rotational speed of any compression stage that is provided with the outlet heat exchanger for cooling the cycle gas.
Ueda teaches that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158). A controller is provided (60) which monitors the operation of the motor for the compressors (paragraph 119).
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 the individual compressors as controlled by the motors of Thomas as modified operated at unique motor rotation speeds (which would be the rotational speed of the compressor) with a controller to monitor the compressors to save energy and improve the performance of the refrigerator. While there is a not a specific teaching of any compressor having a higher or lower speed than any other as they are operated at unique speeds at least two compressors would be operating at a lower speed than two other compressors. Further, as there are only two compressors present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the compression stage which do not have a cooler after them to operate at a lower speed than the compression stage which has a cooler after it as it has been held obvious as it has been held obvious to try whereby choosing between a finite number of predictable solutions is obvious. As there are only two compression stages all of which are shown to be obvious to operate at rotational speeds, determining which compressors operate at the higher and lower speeds respectively would be limited to only the conditions of: the compression stage without a cooler after it operates at a higher speed than a compressor with a cooler after it, the compression stage without an aftercooler after it operates at a lower speed than a compressor with a cooler after it. Thus, choosing between the two conditions would have been obvious and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in operating the compressors with the speeds in the configuration as claimed if that resulted in the optimal conditions of operation to maximizes refrigerating performance.
Claim(s) 18-19, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas/Marcuccilli/Cardella/Ueda and further in view of Durand (FR3072428A1), hereinafter referred to as Durand.
With respect to claim 18, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein at least one of the motors is cooled by a flow of cycle gas via at least one bypass line for a fraction of the flow of cycle gas supplying the compression mechanism, the bypass line comprising an upstream end attached to the outlet of at least one of the compression stages so as to draw off a fraction of the flow of cycle gas,
Durand (Figure 1) teaches that on the outlet line from a first compressor (1) that a pipe can be connected which does not pass to the second compressor but cooling first to a first motor and then to a second motor (5 and 6) before the fluid passing through the motors is returned back to the inlet of the first compressor (1) (Page 5, lines 185-212).
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 Durand to have in Thomas provide a bypass line which takes a portion of the compressed refrigerant from the first compressor and passes it through the motors to provide cooling to the motors before it is passed back to the inlet of the compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a cooling line through the motors would as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art ensure that the motors remain cooled while not having to provide a second source of refrigerant.
With respect to claim 19, Thomas as modified teaches wherein a downstream end of at least one bypass line is attached to the inlet of a compression stage after it passes and exchanges heat with at least one motor (as modified the flow line that goes from the compressor through the motors returns back to the inlet of the compressor so the bypass pipe would be attached to the inlet of a compression stage).
With respect to claims 22-23, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the at least one bypass line comprises a heat exchanger.
Durand teaches that between motors that a heat exchanger (13) can be used to cool the flow of refrigerant used to cool the second motor (Page 5, line 205-207).
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 Durand to have on the flow line between two motors for the refrigerant of Thomas as modified provided a heat exchanger to cool the refrigerant upstream of the second motors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a heat exchanger between the motors would as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art cool the stream to provide it with a sufficient temperature to cool the motor.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas/Marcuccilli/Cardella/Ueda/Durand and further in view of Sun et al. (US PG Pub 20140345311), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
With respect to claims 20-21, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the at least one bypass line comprises, between its upstream end and its downstream end, a subdivision into at least two separate branches respectively supplying separate motors in order to cool them, wherein the at least two separate branches formed by the subdivision of a bypass line have a downstream junction within common line portion of the bypass line.
Sun teaches two examples of cooling components with a motor cooling line (20) where in one configuration (Figure 1D) the components being cooled are in series where the flow enters the system (at 20) passes through and then into the suction of the compressor (paragraph 22) and another (Figure 1E) in which the flow is split into separate flow lines which can be within or outside a compressor before providing cooling and then are both passed to the suction port of the compressor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of passing through the motor in series to have in Thomas as modified based on the teaching of Sun had the line cooling line for the motor split into two and pass through the motors separately before each cooling line is passed to the suction (which would be a junction of the bypass line) of the compressor since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions is obvious whereby as there are two configurations (parallel and series) it would have been obvious to choose from them and one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that it is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing cooling to multiple components before the fluid is passed to the compressor it would have been obvious to have provided parallel as opposed to series flow which would as would be common knowledge in the art allow for the same temperature fluid to be passed to all of the motors so a heat exchange is not needed to cool the flow after the first motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in view of the double patenting rejection that Ueda the teachings of Ueda does not provide a “motivation or suggestion for the specific, counterintuitive control strategy claimed in the present invention” and further argues that when inter-stage cooling is omitted “one might intuitively expect to run those uncooled stages faster to compensate for higher temperatures, or at least at a speed optimized for their individual operation” but that the approach taken by the invention is “counter-intuitive” and as such, “merely identifying a few options does not render the motivation to choose our specific-, counterintuitive solution obvious” and the present invention is not a routine optimization. This is not persuasive.
No evidence has been provided that the result was nonobvious or new an unexpected. Evidence must be provided to show that an unexpected result has been provided (MPEP 716.02(a)). Additionally, Cardella is not used in the rejection for double patenting nor was routine optimization. Further, although evidence can be used to show an unexpected result, such evidence may not be sufficient to rebut the obviousness if the teachings of the prior art lead to a general expectation of the result (MPEP 716.02(a)). Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness. In the case of the combination of Ueda with the co-pending claims as it is shown by Ueda that compressors speeds are chosen to achieve a desired performance and save energy, one having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to try all of the few different combinations available with the reasonable expectation of success of finding an ideal configuration.
In view of applicants amendments of the molar mass of the cycle gas being less than 10 g/mol, Rummelhoff is no longer used in the rejection and instead Thomas is provided above; however, the teachings of the references Ueda, Cardella as well as the other rejections used in the previous rejections are maintained to show obviousness of the limitations not taught by Thomas and as such any arguments which address such references will be addressed, while any arguments against Rummelhoff alone are considered moot.
Applicant argues page 10, which corresponds to point 8 of the accompanying declaration, in regard to the expert analysis of trade-offs does not specifically address the rejection and only makes an argument without supporting evidence as to why the approach as claimed would not work for nitrogen mixtures; however, in view of the amendment’s, the prior art used, specifically Thomas, does not teach the use of nitrogen mixture. Further, even in view of applicant’s declaration, applicant’s own specification appears to counter applicant’s arguments that heavier gases cannot be used as applicant provides a wide range of molar masses that are available, including gases with molar mass less than 30 g/mol (page 7, line 8 of the instant specification) and the specification explicitly considers the use of a gas which is at least 50% nitrogen (page 5, lines 12-13) which appears to run counter to such argument and although the specification does refer to a mixture of helium and nitrogen as “heavy” this also does not preclude the use of a gas such as neon being present.
Applicant argues page 10, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would “intuitive attempt to run that stage at a higher speed to maintain mass flow or compensate for resulting higher temperatures” and that “intentionally maintaining a lower rotation speed for uncooled stages relative to cooled stages” is “contrary to routine optimization” which corresponds to point 9 in the accompanying declaration. This is not persuasive.
First, applicant has provided no evidence that of such attempt being intuitive and the approach of the claimed invention being counterintuitive. “It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence” and while opinion testimony, which is what appears to be provided in the declaration is “entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion as issue” MPEP 716.01(c) it is not found persuasive in this case. Here, it is established by Ueda that that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158). As it is thus established that compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds, there are only a finite number of combinations that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider trying to achieve save energy and improve refrigerating performance, and a such, as it has been separately established obvious to not have some compressors without after coolers, choosing among those compressor to have a lower speed than other compressors, would have been separately obvious rendering the limitation as claimed obvious.
Applicant’s argument page 11, and related declaration arguments, point 12, in regards to the argument for “technical departure from Prior Art” is moot as Rummelhoff is not used in the rejection above in the view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument page 12, and related declaration arguments, point 13, in regards to “Teaching Away and Frustration of Purpose” are moot as they are drawn specifically to Rummelhoff which is not used in the rejection above.
Applicant argues page 13 that the invention results in unexpected results and that based on the testimony in the Roig Declaration that the efficiency benefits are not predictable “but are unexpectedly specific to a critical molar mass range” and that this method cannot be applied to a heavier mixture utilized in the cited art and as such “the invention represents a non-obvious discovery of a specific physical property rather than a matter of routine optimization”. This is not persuasive.
Applicant has not provided any factual evidence of such an unexpected result; however, as stated above “It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence” and while opinion testimony, which is what appears to be provided in the declaration is “entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion as issue” MPEP 716.01(c) it is not found persuasive in this case. Thomas teaches the use of a refrigerant with a molar mass less than 10 g/mol and based on the teachings of Cardella and Ueda it is clear that choosing specific operating conditions in regards to both placement of after coolers and choosing specific operating speeds for motors and in turn compressors would result in a showing of the limitation as claimed to be obvious as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would consider the conditions as claimed obvious to try in determining what the optimal operating conditions for the compressors and motors is.
Applicant argues pages 13-14 that for “standard centrifugal compression practice a PHOSITA seeking to optimize a system where a cooling member has been omitted would intuitive attempt to run that stage at a higher speed to maintain the mass flow or compensate for resulting higher temperatures” which is contrary to optimization and no prior at links these “unique” speeds to the presence or absence of a cooling member in the “counter-intuitive manner claimed’ and that further “defining this solution within this specific molar mass range” results in a “new and unexpected result”. This is not persuasive.
No evidence has been provided that the result was nonobvious or new an unexpected. Evidence must be provided to show that an unexpected result has been provided (MPEP 716.02(a)). Thomas above teaches the use of a helium or hydrogen refrigerant, which would be a refrigerant with a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol. In the case of the combination of Cardella it is shown that it is old and well known that compressors can have intercoolers or aftercoolers but also are not required to have intercoolers or aftercoolers as it can reduce the capital cost (paragraph 136). This shows that it would be obvious, to have had aftercoolers or intercoolers after some compressors but that it would be equally obvious to have them only when necessary, and thus while one having ordinary skill in the art would consider placing them after each compressor, the choice of not having one after a compressor would be obvious, and as there are only a limited number of compressors, a combination of having them after some but not others would be obvious. Further, Ueda provides a teaching that when compressors are operated together, they can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds to achieve optimal performance conditions and save energy (paragraph 158). Thus, as there are a limited number of operating compressors, which have been shown to be obvious to not all have coolers after them, there are a limited number of combinations that are possible and thus it would have been obvious having ordinary skill in the art to achieve the result as claimed when trying to determine ideal operating performance for the overall configuration. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that an adjustment of the speeds would result in a beneficial result and thus would have considered it obvious to have achieved the configuration as claimed as it is one of the identified predictable solutions.
Conclusion
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