DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on September 29th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 27th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-10 have been amended, Claims 15-18 have been newly-added, and Claims 11-14 have been cancelled. Consequently, Claims 1-10 & 15-18 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to because it contained legal phraseology therein (“comprising”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure in accordance with MPEP § 608.01(b) has been provided by Applicant, thereby obviating this objection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant has remedied many of these issues, but issues still remain.
Claims 1-10 & 17-18 are now objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 should read “sensor data from one or more sensors”
Claim 1, line 19 should read “a volume and a pressure of the compressed air”
Claim 2, line 11 should read “said [a] sensor data”
Claim 2, line 13 should read “said pressure of the compressed air”
Claim 2, line 15 should read “said
Claim 3, line 9 should read “and flow rate of the compressed air.”
Claim 7, line 5 should read “a desired heat dissipation, a speed of said electric motor, and a torque
Claim 10, line 5 should read “based on phases of”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 were 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. Applicant has remedied many of these issues, but issues still remain.
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 2, 10, & 17-18 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 2 recites the limitation "said a sensor data" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this as simply “sensor data”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said air flow rate" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this as simply “said volume”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the system" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this as “the variable air compressor assembly”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the airflow rate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this as simply “the volume”.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “a pressure sensor” and “an airflow sensor”; these limitations render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if these limitations are 1) attempting to refer back to the “pressure sensor” and “air flow sensor” of Claim 15 or 2) introducing additional sensors altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the former interpretation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the airflow rate" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this as simply “the volume”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-18 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. In particular, Applicant’s addition of new Claim 15 introduces a new claim scope not previously recited. This new claim scope has invoked new prior art rejections of Claim 15 (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0257306 to Blundell et al.
In regards to independent Claim 15, and with particular reference to Figure 1b, Blundell et al. (Blundell) discloses:
15. A method (Figs. 7a-9) for controlling a variable air compressor assembly (10; Figs. 1b & 2b), the method comprising the steps of: providing said variable air compressor assembly (10) comprising a controller (60), an air intake (50), a compressor (40), an electric motor (46), a belt drive assembly (65), an air outlet (52), a power source (48; para. 39; “VFD 48 can be configured to receive and control an input supply of direct current (“DC”) electrical power or multi-phase alternating current (“AC”) electrical power”), and a device application (70, 74, 78; Fig. 9; see also “drive software” (para. 41), “software” (para. 55), and paras. 60-63); receiving, at the device application, sensor data (63) from one or more sensors (59) selected from the group consisting of an RPM sensor, a motor load sensor, a pressure sensor, and an air flow sensor (suction pressure sensor 59); generating, with the device application, a control signal (79; Fig. 9) based on the received sensor data according to a power management system (74, 78) in the device application; supplying power from the power source to the electric motor (para. 40); mechanically driving the compressor with the electric motor via the belt drive assembly to output compressed air (paras. 39-42; “belt drive 65”) and selectively adjusting a volume and a pressure of the compressed air by modulating a power input from the electric motor to the compressor based on user or system input parameters (906), the modulation being achieved through adjustments in a speed and a torque of the electric motor as commanded by the device application within the controller (Abstract; paras. 7-8, 17, 46-51; Figs. 7a-7b).
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) 15-16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0206538 to Yokota et al. (Yokota) in view of US 2017/0209880 to Carideo et al.
In regards to independent Claim 15, and with particular reference to Figures 1-6B, Yokota et al. (Yokota) discloses:
15. A method (Figs. 4-6B) for controlling a variable air compressor assembly (1; Figs. 1-2); the method comprising the steps of: providing said variable air compressor assembly (1) comprising a controller (2, 9), an air intake (“air sucked into the cylinder from a suction valve”; para. 44), a compressor (4), an electric motor (3b), an air outlet (5), a power source (50a), and a device application (2b, 2c; “executes a control program”; para. 48; “control program loaded in the ROM 2b”; para. 49); receiving, at the device application, sensor data (see signal arrow pointing from sensor 7 to controller 2 in Fig. 3) from one or more sensors (7) selected from the group consisting of an RPM sensor, a motor load sensor, a pressure sensor, and an air flow sensor (pressure sensor 7); generating, with the device application, a control signal (see signal arrow pointing to inverter 3a from controller 2 in Fig. 3) based on the received sensor data according to a power management system (“control program”) in the device application (modulation of electric motor control signals based on a stored power management program is detailed throughout paras. 52-98; see also “reduce the frequency of the operation of the electric motor 3b, so that the power consumption of air compressor 1 can be reduced”; para. 97); supplying power from the power source to the electric motor (paras. 47-49); mechanically driving the compressor with the electric motor to output compressed air (para. 38; “a drive part 3 including an electric motor 3b for driving the compressed-air generation part 4”) and selectively adjusting a volume and a pressure of the compressed air by modulating a power input from the electric motor to the compressor based on user or system input parameters (para. 50), the modulation being achieved through adjustments in a speed and a torque of the electric motor as commanded by the device application within the controller (modulation of electric motor power & speed, and accordingly, the air pressure and volume from the compressor 4, is greatly detailed throughout paras. 52-98).
While Yokota discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose the use of a belt drive assembly to transfer power from the motor to the compressor, as claimed.
However, using a belt drive assembly in a motor-driven air compressor such as Yokota’s is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Carideo. In particular, Carideo discloses another variable air compressor assembly (10; Figs. 1-2) comprising a controller (“controller”; para. 22), an air intake (implicit), an air compressor (28), an electric motor (26), an air outlet (32), flow and pressure sensors (42, 44), and a power source (para. 22), wherein sensor data from the sensors (42, 44) is used to control the operation of the motor (28) (para. 21). Carideo further discloses mechanically driving the air compressor with the electric motor via a belt drive assembly to output the compressed air (para. 18). Carideo makes clear that through a belt drive, a single motor can drive both an air compressor and an associated fluid pump 22 (i.e. for fluid spraying applications). Furthermore, it is vastly well known in the art of pumps that belt drives are cheap and reliable means of transferring power from one rotary element to another. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an air compressor with a belt-drive assembly, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Carideo in combination with those seen in Yokota in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yokota’s motor/compressor arrangement with the belt drive assembly of Carideo in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an air compressor having a cheap and reliable drive transmission that can easily drive other ancillary/auxiliary components, as needed.
In regards to Claim 16, Yokota discloses attaching an output of the variable air compressor assembly to an air intake (8a, 8b) of a blasting system (30a, 30b; “a pneumatic tool, such as a nailing machine”; para. 1; those of skill in the art of pneumatics will recognize that pneumatically-driven nail guns, such as those disclosed in Yokota, provide a blast of compressed air to drive nails);
In regards to Claim 18, Yokota discloses measuring an air pressure of the compressed air output from the compressor using a pressure sensor (7) feeding back measurements from the pressure sensor to the controller; and adjusting the speed and torque of the electric motor based on the feedback to achieve precise control over the pressure and flow rate of the compressed air (modulation of electric motor power & speed, and accordingly, the air pressure and volume from the compressor 4, is greatly detailed throughout paras. 52-98). However, Yokota does not further disclose the use of an airflow sensor, as claimed.
However, Carideo specifically discloses the known use of both an air pressure sensor (44; para. 21) and an airflow sensor (42; para. 20) in conjunction with controlling the operation of a compressor drive motor (28) (paras. 20-21 & 31-32; see also Fig. 5). Carideo makes clear that by monitoring both pressure and flow, compressor output can be optimized. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring an air compressor system with optimized air flow and pressure, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Carideo in combination with those seen in Yokota in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yokota with the addition of a flow sensor (as taught in Carideo) feeding airflow signals back to the controller in order to obtain predictable results; those results being more precise motor speed/torque control that optimizes both pressure and flow rate from the compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming the claim objections and 112(b) rejections noted above. Applicant should note that the application cannot be properly allowed until Applicant has fully overcome the above-noted issues. Please refer to the previous non-final office action for detailed reasons for allowance of these claims.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The best available prior art fails to disclose the steps of: sensing, with a trigger sensor of a blaster trigger, a state of the blaster trigger; communicating sensor data from the trigger sensor to the device application; and dynamically modifying, with the device application, at least one of: the belt drive assembly, a speed of the electric motor, and a torque of the electric motor, thereby adjusting the pressure and airflow rate of the compressed air in accordance with operational parameters of the blasting system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed September 29th, 2025 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC