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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sensor in the hazardous environment” introduced in lines 1-2 of claim 6 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Figs. 1-2 of the drawings do not show a sensor in a hazardous environment 12. Applicant’s specification does not appear to further describe the claimed “sensor in the hazardous environment” beyond stating “[the] system as in any prior embodiment, further including a sensor in the hazardous environment” in ¶ 0017.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/19/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, no concise explanation of relevance has been included for non-English language Foreign Document RU 2315897 C2 (Cite No. 5) [e.g., see: MPEP 609.04(a)_III].
The information disclosure statement filed 03/19/2025 also fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, significant portions of at least pages 3-6 (of pages 1-9) of the included copy of Non-Patent Literature Document “Purge & Pressurization Systems…” (Cite No. 1) are illegible [e.g., see: MPEP 609.04(a)_II], and it can only be assumed that all of pages 1-9 of the reference caused the reference to be listed based on the lack of a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference.
The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “passing driveshaft” in line 1, which appears to be a misstating of --passing a driveshaft--.
Claim 1 recites “disposed sealedly disposed” in each of lines 3 and 5, which appears to be a misstating of --
Claim 1 recites “gas tight” in lines 3 and 5, which appears to be a misspelling of --gastight-- in each instance.
Claim 1 recites “the first seal and second seal” in line 6, which should be amended to instead recite --the first gastight rotatable seal and the second gastight rotatable seal-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a first gas tight rotatable seal” in line 3 and “a second gas tight rotatable seal” in line 5 and for proper spelling.
Claim 1 recites “the first and second seals” in line 9, which should be amended to instead recite --the first gastight rotatable seal and the second gastight rotatable seal-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a first gas tight rotatable seal” in line 3 and “a second gas tight rotatable seal” in line 5 and for proper spelling.
Claim 8 recites “a system with a driveshaft inside a hazardous environment with a drive in a nonhazardous environment” in lines 1-2, which appears to be a misstating of --a system with a driveshaft inside a hazardous environment and with a drive in a nonhazardous environment--.
Claim 8 recites “gas tight” in lines 3 and 6, which appears to be a misspelling of --gastight-- in each instance.
Claim 8 recites “the first seal and second seal” in line 8, which should be amended to instead recite --the first gastight rotatable seal and the second gastight rotatable seal-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a first gas tight rotatable seal” in line 3 and “a second gas tight rotatable seal” in line 6 and for proper spelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “purge and pressure device” in claims 1 and 4-12.
The term “purge and pressure device,” as used in the claims, is no different from any of “purge and pressure means” or “means for purge and pressure,” as the word “device” does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term “means” had been used (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A&B). Persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would not understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), especially in view of the brief generic description of “purge and pressure device 34” via ¶ 0009 & 0013 of the specification and the black box depiction of “purge and pressure device 34” in Figs. 1-2 of the drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-12 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 1 refers to “the driveshaft” in line 9; however, claim 1 previously introduces each of “driveshaft” in line 1 and “a rotatable driveshaft” in line 8, and it is unclear whether the “driveshaft” in line 9 is intended to refer to the “driveshaft” introduced in line 1 and/or the “rotatable driveshaft” introduced in line 8, such that it is also unclear whether the “rotatable driveshaft” introduced in line 8 is intended to be the same as or different from the “driveshaft” previously introduced in line 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. Additionally, in a case where the “rotatable driveshaft” introduced in line 8 is, in fact, intended to be the same as the “driveshaft” previously introduced in line 1, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “A system for passing driveshaft between hazardous and nonhazardous environments” in line 1, in view of the claimed “system” including “a rotatable driveshaft passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments…” in lines 8-9 via “comprising” in line 2.
Claims 2-7 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2-7 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the purge and pressure device includes a pump and a sensor to preload a pressure in the volume and monitor the volume pressure” in lines 1-3, which appears to require that the “sensor” of the “purge and pressure device” performs the function of “preload a pressure in the volume” in addition to the function of “monitor the volume pressure”; however, it is unclear how a sensor would preload a pressure in a volume, as a sensor, by definition, differently responds to a physical stimulus (e.g., a pressure in a volume) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control), especially since Applicant’s specification fails to specially define “sensor” away from its ordinary and customary meaning or provide sufficient disclosure of the “sensor” of the “purge and pressure device” performing the function of “preload a pressure in the volume” (e.g., see ¶ 0009 of the specification).
Claim 2 refers to “the volume pressure” in lines 2-3. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1; however, neither claim previously introduces “a volume pressure,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the volume pressure” in lines 2-3 of claim 2. Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “a volume” in line 7, claim 2 previously introduces “a pressure in the volume” in line 2, and it is unclear whether the “volume pressure” in lines 2-3 of claim 2 is intended to be the same as or different from one of the “volume” previously introduced in line 7 of claim 1 or the “pressure in the volume” previously introduced in line 2 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2, such that claim 3 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 2 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 3 refers to “the preload pressure” in line 1. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2; however, none of claims 1-3 previously introduces “a preload pressure,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the preload pressure” in line 1 of claim 3. Claim 2 does, however, previously introduce “a pressure in the volume” in line 2, and it is unclear whether the “preload pressure” in line 1 of claim 3 is intended to be the same as or different from the “pressure in the volume” previously introduced in line 2 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 also recites “the preload pressure is about 3 to about 8 pounds per square inch (PSI)” in lines 1-2; however, each instance of the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. More specifically, ¶ 0024 of Applicant’s specification attempts to define the term “about” via disclosure that “[the term “about” is] intended to include the degree of error associated with measurement of the particular quantity based upon the equipment available at the time of filing the application”; however, it is unclear which particular equipment, of myriad equipment available at the time of filing the application, is intended by Applicant to be employed as “the equipment available at the time of filing the application,” such that it would be impossible to reliably discern the intended meaning of “the degree of error associated with measurement of [preload pressure].” Furthermore, ¶ 0024 of Applicant’s specification attempts to define the term “about” via disclosure of “[for] example, “about” […] can include a range of ±8% of a given value” (emphasis added); however, this generic statement expresses a preference for ascertaining the requisite degree rather than a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and “about” […] can include a range of ±8% of a given value” fails to define the term “about.”
Claim 4 refers to “the preload pressure” in line 1. Claim 4 is dependent from claim 1; however, neither claim previously introduces “a preload pressure,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the preload pressure” in line 1 of claim 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is dependent from claim 4, such that claim 5 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 4 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 4 is rejected.
Claim 5 refers to “the threshold” in line 1. Claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 4; however, none of claims 1, 4, and 5 previously introduces “a threshold,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the threshold” in line 1 of claim 5. Claim 4 does, however, previously introduce “a threshold loss of pressure over time” in lines 2-3, and it is unclear whether the “threshold” in line 1 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “threshold loss of pressure over time” in lines 2-3 of claim 4, especially since claim 5 recites “the threshold is one pound per square inch” in lines 1-2, which has different units as compared to “pressure over time.” Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 introduces “a driveshaft” in line 3; however, claim 8 also previously introduces “a driveshaft” in line 1, and it is unclear whether the “driveshaft” introduced in line 3 is intended to be the same as or different from the “driveshaft” previously introduced in line 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-12 are dependent from claim 8, such that claims 9-12 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 8 is rejected.
Claim 10 refers to “the sensor reading” in lines 1-2. Claim 10 is dependent from claim 8 via claim 9; however, none of claims 8-10 previously introduces “a sensor reading,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the sensor reading” in lines 1-2 of claim 10. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is dependent from claim 10, such that claim 11 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 10 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 10 is rejected.
Claim 12 introduces “preload pressure” in line 2; however, claim 12 is dependent from claim 8, and claim 8 also previously introduces “a preload pressure” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “preload pressure” introduced in line 2 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “preload pressure” previously introduced in line 10 of claim 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019-044833 A to Suyama et al. (hereinafter: “Suyama”).
With respect to claim 1, Suyama teaches a system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3) for passing driveshaft between hazardous and nonhazardous environments [the claim preamble statement “for passing driveshaft between hazardous and nonhazardous environments,” when read in the context of the entire claim, amounts to a recitation of intended use or purpose that does not appear to be germane to patentability of the claimed “system” (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02); even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0021-0025, 0027, 0029, 0035, 0037, 0042-0043, 0045, 0054 & 0056, a rotating shaft 6 (e.g., “driveshaft”) passes between high-temperature helium gas inside a pressure vessel 3 (e.g., “hazardous environment”) and atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3 (e.g., “nonhazardous environment”) via a shaft seal device 8, where the rotating shaft 6 is driven to rotate by operation of a turbine 4 in the pressure vessel 3], comprising: a first gas tight rotatable seal (e.g., 34) disposed sealedly disposed in a partition (e.g., 25) between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and no part of “disposed sealedly disposed in a partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” requires inclusion of the “partition,” the “hazardous environment,” or the “non-hazardous environment” by the claimed “system,” and “disposed sealedly disposed in a partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the “first gas tight rotatable seal” of the claimed “system” is intended to be employed; even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0027, 0030-0035 & 0054, the shaft seal device 8 includes the seal part 34, where the seal part 34 is configured as a labyrinth seal, which prevents leakage of the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 to the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3 (e.g., “gas tight”), including first portions fixed to a rotating outer periphery of the rotating shaft 6 (e.g., “rotatable”) and second portions fixed to the fixed outer wall portion 25, such that the seal part 34 is sealedly arranged in the fixed outer wall portion 25 between the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 and the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3]; a second gas tight rotatable seal (e.g., 35) disposed sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments [no part of “disposed sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” requires inclusion of the “partition,” the “hazardous environment,” or the “non-hazardous environment” by the claimed “system,” and “disposed sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the “second gas tight rotatable seal” of the claimed “system” is intended to be employed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0027, 0030-0035 & 0054, the shaft seal device 8 also includes the seal part 35, where the seal part 35 is configured as a labyrinth seal, which prevents leakage of the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 to the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3, including first portions fixed to the rotating outer periphery of the rotating shaft 6 and second portions fixed to the fixed outer wall portion 25, such that the seal part 35 is sealedly arranged in the fixed outer wall portion 25 between the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 and the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3], the first seal and second seal being spaced from one another to define a volume (e.g., 24) therebetween (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0032-0034); a rotatable driveshaft (6) passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments [no part of “passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” requires inclusion of the “hazardous environment” or the “non-hazardous environment” by the claimed “system,” and “passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the “rotatable driveshaft” of the claimed “system” is intended to be employed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above, the rotating shaft 6 passes between the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 and the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3], the driveshaft sealed to each of the first and second seals (as discussed in detail above, the rotating shaft 6 is sealed to the seal part 34 via the first portions of the labyrinth seal of the seal part 34 which are fixed to the rotating shaft 6, and the rotating shaft 6 is also sealed to the seal part 35 via the first portions of the labyrinth seal of the seal part 35 which are fixed to the rotating shaft 6); and a purge and pressure device operably connected to the volume [as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0031-0045, a separation device 71 is operably connected to the volume section 24 via a recovered gas supply device 91 and a recovered gas delivery device 101, where the separation device 71 receives gas purged from a volume section 23 via a recovery device 61 connected to the separation device 71 and the volume section 23, where a pumping device 92 of the recovered gas supply device 91 pressurizes gas from a recovered gas supply unit 91a of the recovered gas supply device 91 and supplies the pressurized gas to the volume section 24, and where the separation device 71 is additionally connected to a sealing gas supply device 41 via a helium gas delivery device 81, such that a first combination of the separation device 71, the recovered gas supply device 91, and the recovered gas delivery device 101 (OR a second combination of the separation device 71, the recovered gas supply device 91, the recovered gas delivery device 101, and at least one of sealing gas supply device 41, the recovery device 61, or the helium gas delivery device 81) includes structure and function that is the same as (or equivalent to) a “purge and pressure device”].
With respect to claim 2, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the purge and pressure device includes a pump (e.g., 92) and a sensor (e.g., 92c) to preload a pressure in the volume and monitor the volume pressure (as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at ¶ 0043, 0045 & 0053).
With respect to claim 4, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the purge and pressure device maintains the preload pressure with added fluid volume until a threshold loss of pressure over time is exceeded [as discussed by at least ¶ 0043, 0045, & 0053; note that the pumping device 92 would inherently be unable to maintain pressure with added fluid volume if unintended leakage (e.g., due to damage) was to occur downstream of the pumping device 92 (e.g., along the pipe 91b or at a section of the outer wall portion corresponding to the volume portion 24) and an amount of the unintended leakage exceeds a maximum output of the pumping device 92 (e.g., “until a threshold loss of pressure over time is exceeded”)].
With respect to claim 6, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, further including a sensor (e.g., 41f) in the hazardous environment [no part of “in the hazardous environment” requires inclusion of the “hazardous environment” by the claimed “system,” and “in the hazardous environment” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the “sensor” of the claimed “system” is intended to be employed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0036].
With respect to claim 7, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine [no part of “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine” requires inclusion of the “nonhazardous environment” or the “internal combustion engine” by the claimed “system,” and no part of “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine” necessarily defines or requires any relationship or proximity between the “internal combustion engine” and the claimed “system,” and “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “system” is intended to be employed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), and nothing about the disclosure of Suyama would prohibit an “internal combustion engine” from being located in the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3, including an “internal combustion engine” that is separate from the “system” of Suyama and located at a significant distance from the “system” of Suyama] and the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance [no part of “the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” requires inclusion of the “hazardous environment” or the “flammable” by the claimed “system,” and no part of “the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” necessarily defines or requires any relationship or proximity between the “flammable substance” and the claimed “system,” and “the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” instead merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “system” is intended to be employed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), and nothing about the disclosure of Suyama would prohibit the system from being usable with alternative hazardous environments within the pressure vessel 3, such as an alternative hazardous environment including a flammable substance (e.g., at a smallest possible amount or level) within the pressure vessel 3].
With respect to claim 8, Suyama teaches a method for operating a system with a driveshaft inside a hazardous environment with a drive in a nonhazardous environment [the claim preamble statement “for operating a system with a driveshaft inside a hazardous environment with a drive in a nonhazardous environment,” when read in the context of the entire claim, amounts to a recitation of intended use or purpose that does not appear to be germane to patentability of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02); even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0021-0025, 0027, 0029, 0035, 0037, 0042-0043, 0045, 0054 & 0056, an apparent system (see Figs. 1-3) is operated such that a rotating shaft 6 (e.g., “driveshaft”) passes from within a pressure vessel 3 containing high-temperature helium gas (e.g., “hazardous environment”) to atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3 (e.g., “nonhazardous environment”) via a shaft seal device 8], comprising: disposing a driveshaft (6) through a first gas tight rotatable seal (e.g., 34) sealingly connected to the driveshaft and sealedly disposed in a partition (e.g., 25) between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0027, 0030-0035 & 0054, the rotating shaft 6 is disposed through the seal part 34 which is included by the shaft seal device 8, where the seal part 34 is configured as a labyrinth seal, which prevents leakage of the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 to the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3 (e.g., “gas tight”), including first portions fixed to a rotating outer periphery of the rotating shaft 6 (e.g., “rotatable”) and second portions fixed to the fixed outer wall portion 25, such that the seal part 34 is sealedly arranged in the fixed outer wall portion 25 between the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 and the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3]; disposing the driveshaft through a second gas tight rotatable seal (e.g., 35) sealingly connected to the driveshaft and sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0027, 0030-0035 & 0054, the rotating shaft 6 is disposed through the seal part 35 which is included by the shaft seal device 8, where the seal part 35 is configured as a labyrinth seal, which prevents leakage of the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 to the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3, including first portions fixed to the rotating outer periphery of the rotating shaft 6 and second portions fixed to the fixed outer wall portion 25, such that the seal part 35 is sealedly arranged in the fixed outer wall portion 25 between the high-temperature helium gas inside the pressure vessel 3 and the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3], the first seal and second seal being spaced from one another to define a volume (e.g., 24) therebetween (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0032-0034); and supplying a preload pressure in the volume with a purge and pressure device [as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0031-0045, a separation device 71 is operably connected to the volume section 24 via a recovered gas supply device 91 and a recovered gas delivery device 101, where the separation device 71 receives gas purged from a volume section 23 via a recovery device 61 connected to the separation device 71 and the volume section 23, where a pumping device 92 of the recovered gas supply device 91 pressurizes gas from a recovered gas supply unit 91a of the recovered gas supply device 91 and supplies the pressurized gas to the volume section 24, and where the separation device 71 is additionally connected to a sealing gas supply device 41 via a helium gas delivery device 81, such that a first combination of the separation device 71, the recovered gas supply device 91, and the recovered gas delivery device 101 (OR a second combination of the separation device 71, the recovered gas supply device 91, the recovered gas delivery device 101, and at least one of sealing gas supply device 41, the recovery device 61, or the helium gas delivery device 81) includes structure and function that is the same as (or equivalent to) a “purge and pressure device”].
With respect to claim 9, Suyama teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, further including monitoring the preload pressure in the volume with a sensor (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 2).
With respect to claim 10, Suyama teaches the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising comparing the sensor reading to a threshold for pressure loss over time [as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at ¶ 0043, 0045 & 0053, a pressure P5 in the volume portion 24 measured by the volume sensor 92c is compared to a pressure P4 (e.g., “threshold for pressure loss over time”) in the volume portion 23; additionally or alternatively, as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at ¶ 0043, 0045 & 0053, the pressure P5 in the volume portion 24 measured by the volume sensor 92c is compared to a pressure P6 (e.g., “threshold for pressure loss over time”) in the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3].
With respect to claim 11, Suyama teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising shutting down the system if the threshold is exceeded [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “shutting down the system” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method when the condition “the threshold is exceeded” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the threshold is never exceeded during performing of the claimed method, such as when pressure loss over time does not occur during performing of the claimed method), such that “shutting down the system if the threshold is exceeded” is not required to be performed as part of the claimed method and does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 12, Suyama teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, further including adding pressure to the volume in the event that preload pressure in the volume falls [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “adding pressure to the volume” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method when the condition “preload pressure in the volume falls” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the preload pressure in the volume does not fall during performing of the claimed method), such that “adding pressure to the volume in the event that preload pressure in the volume falls” is not required to be performed as part of the claimed method and does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0045 & 0053].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama alone.
With respect to claim 3, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the preload pressure (P5) is greater than atmospheric pressure (P6) (as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0045 & 0053); however, Suyama appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the preload pressure is about 3 to about 8 pounds per square inch (PSI) {note: ¶ 0024 of Applicant’s specification attempts to define the term “about” via the following disclosure: “The [term “about” is] intended to include the degree of error associated with measurement of the particular quantity based upon the equipment available at the time of filing the application. For example, “about” […] can include a range of ±8% of a given value”; also, as understood by the examiner, “preload pressure” refers to a pressure amount in excess of atmospheric pressure}.
The examiner takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that it is a well-known fact, and common knowledge in the art, that atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 14.7 PSI and that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Suyama, if even necessary, such that the preload pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure by about 3 to about 8 PSI because exceeding the atmospheric pressure by about 3 to about 8 PSI via the preload pressure would enable the pressure P5 within the volume portion 25 to exceed the pressure P6 of the atmosphere (or air) outside the pressure vessel 3, as required for effective sealing by the shaft sealing device of Suyama, and to beneficially enable the pressure P5 to exceed the pressure P6 by more than a minimal amount without greatly exceeding the pressure P6 (e.g., to achieve a safety margin for the difference between the pressure P5 and the pressure P6 without needlessly oversizing pressure output of the pumping device 92), especially since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05_II).
With respect to claim 5, Suyama teaches the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the preload pressure (P5) is greater than each of atmospheric pressure (P6) and a pressure (P4) in an adjacent volume portion (23) (as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0045 & 0053); however, Suyama appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the threshold is one pound per square inch (PSI).
The examiner takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that it is a well-known fact, and common knowledge in the art, that atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 14.7 PSI and that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in the context of the system of Suyama, for the threshold, of the purge and pressure device maintains the preload pressure with added fluid volume until a threshold loss of pressure over time is exceeded in claim 4, to be one PSI because the pumping device 92 of Suyama would inherently be unable to maintain pressure with added fluid volume if unintended leakage (e.g., due to damage) was to occur downstream of the pumping device 92 (e.g., along the pipe 91b or at a section of the outer wall portion corresponding to the volume portion 24) and an amount of the unintended leakage exceeds a maximum output of the pumping device 92 by, for example, at least one PSI, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05_II).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0281741 to Peer et al. (hereinafter: “Peer”) in view of Suyama, in the alternative to under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama.
With respect to claim 7, Suyama, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 7, is understood to teach each and every limitation of the claimed “system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine and the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” is, in fact, germane to patentability of the claimed “system” (and necessarily further limits the claimed “system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation) and/or in such a case where “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine and the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed “system,” it is also noted that Peer teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2B) comprising: one or more dry gas seal(s) (e.g., 254) and one or more labyrinth seal(s) (e.g., 256) sealedly disposed in a partition between a hazardous environment and a nonhazardous environment (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2B in view of at least ¶ 0021 & 0035); and a rotatable driveshaft (108) passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments and sealed to each of the one or more dry gas seal(s) and the one or more labyrinth seal(s) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2B in view of at least ¶ 0021 & 0035). It is also noted that Peer is directed to a compressor (102) in a hazardous environment (e.g., a hazardous environment containing a flammable substance, such as a high molecular weight process fluid including hydrocarbons) driven by a driver (104) in a nonhazardous environment, where the drive is a motor (e.g., an electric motor) or an engine (e.g., an internal combustion engine) that drives the compressor to rotate via the rotatable driveshaft (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2B in view of at least ¶ 0016-0019 & 0021).
Suyama teaches a system for passing driveshaft between hazardous and nonhazardous environments, comprising: a first gas tight rotatable seal disposed sealedly disposed in a partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments; a second gas tight rotatable seal disposed sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments, the first seal and second seal being spaced from one another to define a volume therebetween; a rotatable driveshaft passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments, the driveshaft sealed to each of the first and second seals; and a purge and pressure device operably connected to the volume (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1). It is also noted that Peer is directed to a turbine (4) in the hazardous environment which drives a driven-component (7) in the nonhazardous environment, where the driven-component is an electric generator that is driven by rotation of the turbine via the rotatable driveshaft (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, even if “wherein the nonhazardous environment includes an internal combustion engine and the hazardous environment includes a flammable substance” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed “system,” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Peer with the teachings of Suyama to include “a first gas tight rotatable seal disposed sealedly disposed in a partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments; a second gas tight rotatable seal disposed sealedly disposed in the partition between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments, the first seal and second seal being spaced from one another to define a volume therebetween; a rotatable driveshaft passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments, the driveshaft sealed to each of the first and second seals; and a purge and pressure device operably connected to the volume” of Suyama in place of the “one or more dry gas seal(s) and one or more labyrinth seal(s) sealedly disposed in a partition between a hazardous environment and a nonhazardous environment; and a rotatable driveshaft passing between the hazardous and nonhazardous environments and sealed to each of the one or more dry gas seal(s) and the one or more labyrinth seal(s)” because Suya