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 .
Election/Restrictions
With regards to the restriction requirement, Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 25, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of the entire application constitutes an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because all claims to Group II have been canceled effectively rendering the restriction requirement moot as noted by the applicant at page 13, lines 11-13.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With regards to the election of species requirement, Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on August 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the reference numerals 2005 & 2007 mentioned at page 18 lines 10-14 as being in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a first maximum design temperature” of claim 7.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 6-9 the limitation “….the working fluid, and
wherein the first volume of the cooling fluid is injected:
during a first intake stroke…” should be changed to: “….the working fluid; and
wherein the first volume of the cooling fluid is injected:
during a first intake stroke…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 “compression chamber; or” should be “compression chamber, or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11 “compression chamber, wherein” should be “compression chamber; wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “a first control condition” should be “the first control condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “automatically controlling” should be “automatically controlling delivery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11 “and the first volume of the cooling fluid into the” should be “and the size of the first volume of the cooling fluid injected into the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “wherein the size of the second volume of the cooling fluid is a function” should be “wherein the size of the second volume of the cooling fluid will be controlled as . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11 “and the second volume of the cooling fluid into the” should be “and the size of the second volume of the cooling fluid injected into the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph a) “size” should be inserted after “same”; in paragraph c) “same” should be “same volume”; paragraph d) is a duplicate of paragraph a); in paragraph e) “condition” should be inserted after “same”; in paragraph f) “temperature” should be inserted after “same”; in paragraph g) “condition” should be inserted after “same”; in paragraph h) “temperature” should be inserted after “same”; and, in paragraph i) “volume” should be inserted after “same”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “the location remote” should be “a location remote”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 104 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “said method comprising: _” should be “said method comprising: ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 94-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
MPEP 2164.01(a) establishes the analysis required to determine whether the filed disclosure contains information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to one skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The factors to be considered to determine whether any necessary experimentation is undue, also known as The Wands factors, see In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the Applicant;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re claims 94-97, note especially claim 94, after analyzing the application with the above factors, the examiner has concluded that there is not an enabling disclosure for the option of claim 94 step a) of “delivering a first portion of the working fluid into a first compression chamber of the compressor during either an intake stroke or a compression stroke of the compressor”.
With regards to Wands factor (A) the breadth of the claims is directed to a method of cooling a reciprocating piston compressor by delivering a first portion of the working fluid into a first compression chamber during either an intake or a discharge stroke, during this step injecting a cooling fluid into the volume of the first compression chamber and after the injection a compression stroke is initiated to produce a first pressurized mixture, followed by discharging the first pressurized mixture. With regards to Wands factors (B, C, D & E) the nature of the invention (B) is directed to a method of operating and cooling a commonly and well understood reciprocating piston compressor having intake and discharge strokes and the associated valving that allows for the delivery of working fluid into and out of the compression chamber; to this compressor a cooling fluid injection step has been added. The state of the art (C) for reciprocating compressors and for cooling fluid injection is very well developed, the operation and effects of such devices is highly predictable (E) and the skill level of one of ordinary skill (D) is high, such as being a skilled technician or a college educated artisan. With regards to Wands factors (F, G & H), the applicant has thoroughly described (F) the operation of the compressor with regards to the first option of claim 94 step (a) and the delivery of the working fluid to the compression chamber 2002 through the intake suction check valve 2021, the amount of direction provided by the applicant is bolstered by the highly developed state of the art, the high level of skill and the high predictability in the art as noted in the discussion of Wands factors (C, D & E); the disclosure provides two working examples (Wands factor G, see Figs. 2 and 4), and due to the advanced state of the art, the high level of skill and the predictability of the device little to no experimentation (H) is required to make and understand the invention.
The second option of step (a) in claim 94 is inoperative because no description has been given of how to deliver working fluid to the first compression chamber during a compression stroke of the compressor. This option of step (a) is inoperative and thus Wands Factor F has not been satisfied for this portion of the claim. The Examiner notes that in a reciprocating compressor during the intake stroke the compression chamber increases in volume and the pressure drops which causes the intake check valve 2021 to open and working fluid to be delivered into the compression chamber. In the compression stroke the volume of the compression chamber is decreased thus increasing the pressure therein. This rising pressure closes the intake check valve thus preventing delivery of fluid into the compression chamber. The Applicant has provided no direction as to how this operation of preventing delivery of working fluid during the compression stroke would be overcome, such as by actively controlling the intake valve 2021 and supercharging the intake working fluid to be able to be delivered into the compression chamber during the rising pressure of the compression stroke. Therefore, this option of claim 94 and claims 95-97 dependent therefrom are not enabled.
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 6, 7, 21 and 24 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.
The claims are vague and indefinite because in claim 6 the final wherein limitation of lines 3-6, i.e., “and wherein the first volume of the cooling fluid is a function…of the cooling fluid” is confusing. In particular, as worded the claim appears to be setting forth the inherent relationship that the temperature of the pressurized mixture and the quantity of the coolant are related to each other; or, given that claim 4 describes control functions, the limitation could be intended to set forth that the “size of the first volume of the cooling fluid injected” is controlled as a function of the amount by which the mixture temperature exceeds the threshold value. For purposes of examination the limitation of claim 6 lines 3-6 will be considered as: “and wherein the size of the first volume of the cooling fluid will be controlled as
Claims 7, 21 and 24 are vague and indefinite because the meaning and the reference frame for judging “a first maximum design temperature” is unclear in the claims. It is noted that this limitation has not been described in the specification and the reference frame for judging and determining “maximum design” is not described. This could be considered as a number of different temperatures, such as a manufacturers provided temperature limit for the compressor, a designers temperature limit for a specific application, or randomly set limit by the compressor operator. Because of this the meaning of the limitation is unclear. Claims 21 and 24 are similarly unclear.
Claim 24 recites the limitations "the first sub-control condition” and “the second sub-control condition" in paragraph g). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 24 is recites the limitation "the first predefined maximum design temperature" in paragraph h). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitations "the first and second predetermined deliverable volumes” in paragraph i). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitations "the first and second electronic controllers” in paragraph j), there is no antecedent basis for “the second electronic controller”.
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) 94, 97 and 99-101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Coney et al (“Development Of A Reciprocating Compressor Using Water Injection To Achieve Quasi-Isothermal Compression”, article provided by the Applicant).
With regards to claims 94 and 99, Coney et al disclose a method of cooling (note the second full paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section which states “Discharge fluid temperatures are low because of the cooling effect of the injected water.”) a single stage reciprocating piston compressor (see Fig. 1 & 4, Fig. 4 is annotated below) that pressurizes (see the second full paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section which notes that “high pressure ratios (up to about 30) can be achieved”) a working fluid comprising a mixture of gas and liquid (see line 4 of the second full paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section and note the annotation in Fig. 4 below), the method comprising: (a) delivering a first portion (the portion of the working fluid which is air delivered through the air inlet of Fig. 4) of the working fluid into a first compression chamber of the compressor during an intake stroke of the compressor (see the first full paragraph of the Optimization of Water Injection to Maximize Heat Transfer section, at least, which discuses “(i)ntroducing water spray early on in the compression, or even during the down-stroke, gives more time for injection and dispersion of the droplets.”) ; (b) during (a), injecting a first volume (the volume of cooling fluid added during the down stroke/intake stroke of the compression cycle) of a cooling fluid (as noted in the Optimization of Water Injection to Maximize Heat Transfer section water in injected during the compression cycle) having a composition different from the working fluid (the composition of the injected cooling fluid is 100% water and the working fluid in the compression chamber is a mixture of air and water) into said first compression chamber of the compressor; (c) after (a) and (b), initiating a first compression stroke of a reciprocating piston in the first compression chamber, such that a first pressurized mixture comprising the first portion of the working fluid and the first volume of the cooling fluid is produced in the first compression chamber (as noted in the Optimization of Water Injection to Maximize Heat Transfer section after the water is injected during the portion of the suction stroke the compression stroke begins and is initiated to form the compressed mixture); (d) discharging the first pressurized mixture (via the bounce valve shown in Fig. 4) from the first compression chamber in response to the first pressurized mixture satisfying a first discharge condition (i.e., the pressure needed to overcome the pressure bias on the bounce valve as discussed in the Novel Discharge Valve section). Claim 99 is similarly rejected since claim 94 additionally includes the limitation of the delivering the first portion of the working fluid during either the intake stroke or the compression stoke, and claim 99 only requires delivery during the intake.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 97 and 100, Coney et al discloses (e) automatically controlling delivery of the first volume of the cooling fluid injected into the first compression chamber during the compression stroke (see the first full paragraph of the Optimization of Water Injection to Maximize Heat Transfer section, at least, which discuses “(i)ntroducing water spray early on in the compression, or even during the down-stroke, gives more time for injection and dispersion of the droplets.”) of the reciprocating piston in the first compression chamber, in response to a first control condition of the first pressurized mixture measured during that same compression stroke (the crank angle, see the third paragraph of the PHYSICAL MECHANISMS section, which represents the volume of the compression chamber and of the mixture). Claim 100 is similarly rejected.
With regards to claim 101, Coney et al disclose injecting the first volume of said cooling fluid (see the first full paragraph of the Optimization of Water Injection to Maximize Heat Transfer section, at least, which discuses “(i)ntroducing water spray early on in the compression, or even during the down-stroke, gives more time for injection and dispersion of the droplets.”) during a first intake stroke (the portion injected “even during a down-stroke”), and injecting a second volume of cooling fluid during a subsequent compression stroke (the portion representing the rest of the water injected “early on in the compression”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 104-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coney et al in view of Okaichi et al (USPAP 2017/0016435).
With regards to claim 104, the limitations of this claim are substantially included in claims 94 and 99, with the exception being that claim 104 additionally sets forth the step of communicating the working fluid to a pipe of a piping system and a step of delivering a first volume of cooling fluid into the pipe as the working fluid is flowing to form a mixture of said first volume of cooling fluid and a first portion of the working fluid, this is not disclosed in Coney et al.
Okaichi et al disclose a similar reciprocating piston compressor for acting upon a working fluid being a mixture of gas and liquid (see Fig. 1) Okaichi et al also sets forth (see annotated Fig. 2 below, and paragraphs [0066] & [0067]) the step of communicating the working fluid to a pipe (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) of a piping system (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) and a step of delivering a first volume of cooling fluid into the pipe (via the pipe 12 and as labeled in the annotated Fig. 2) as the working fluid is flowing to form a mixture (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 of said first volume of cooling fluid and a first portion of the working fluid.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute cooling fluid injection into a piping system, as taught by Okiaichi et a for cooling fluid injection directly into a compression chamber as in Coney et al since each cooling fluid providing mechanism is recognized as equivalence for their use in the compressor cooling art and selection of either of these known equivalents to provide the cooling fluid would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 105, Coney et al in view of Okaichi et al teach the limitations of this claim, which are also included as limitations in claims 97 and 100. Once the cooling fluid addition is performed as taught by Okaichi et al, as provided above, the cooling fluid will be delivered into the pipe and automatically controlled via the pipe 12 and the control valve 12a.
With regards to claim 106, Coney et al in view of Okaichi et al teach a method as claimed in claim 104, wherein the delivering of said first volume of cooling fluid comprises delivering the first volume of cooling fluid through a cooling fluid conduit (12) that is joined at a pipe connection (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above) to and in fluid communication with said the pipe, a pressure of said cooling fluid in said cooling fluid conduit being higher (see the second paragraph of the Test Rig Design section of Coney et al) than a pressure of said working fluid in said pipe at said pipe connection.
With regards to claim 107, Coney et al in view of Okaichi et al teach a method as claimed in claim 106, wherein the flow of said first volume of said cooling fluid through said cooling fluid conduit (12) into said pipe is controlled by a valve mechanism (12a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-20, 22, 23 and 25-32 are allowed.
Claims 6, 7, 21 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious a method of cooling a reciprocating piston compressor that pressurizes a working fluid in a first compression chamber and including injecting a first volume of a cooling fluid into the first compression chamber; as claimed wherein the working fluid is pressurized by the first compression stroke of the reciprocating piston in the first compression chamber, to produce a first pressurized mixture comprising the first portion of the working fluid and the first volume of the cooling fluid in the first compression chamber; and discharging the first pressurized mixture from the first compression chamber in response to the first pressurized mixture satisfying a first discharge condition; and automatically controlling delivery of the first volume of the cooling fluid injected into the first compression chamber for a successive first intake stroke or a successive first compression stroke of the reciprocating piston in the first compression chamber, in response to a first control condition of the first pressurized mixture. Claims 95 and 96 are allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coney et al ‘660, Kremer et al and Fong et al disclose reciprocating compressors with cooling injection arrangements. Arlandis and McCarthy disclose two phase reciprocating compressors in a well environment. Leone et al disclose an injection system for an internal combustion engine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
October 11, 2025