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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered. All previous objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 17, the phrase “a rail” should be changed to “a rail of the two fixed guide rails”; in claim 22, “with rolling element(s)” should be changed to “with a rolling element or rolling elements”; in claim 23, lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein is the apparatus is” should be changed to wherein the apparatus is”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. In claim 15, recitation is made that the elastic portion is configured to generate a “continuous force”. Examiner notes, however, that the elastic portion, as a singular spring or deformable zone will necessarily provide alternating positive and negative force rebalancing during a complete crankshaft cycle and thusly will encounter momentary zero force instances when the force transitions from a positive to negative value, which precludes any absolute designation of a continuous force. As such, Examiner does not know with a sufficient degree of certainty what constitutes the force to be characterized as “continuous”. Examiner requests clarification.
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.
Claim(s) 14-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 3,251,602) in view of Clemens (US20100275774) and in further view of Voelund (JP20043479A).
Claim 14: Williams discloses an apparatus for compressing cryogenic fluid (Figs. 1-4) comprising a sealed enclosure (24) configured to contain a bath of cryogenic fluid (Fig. 1); a compression chamber (99) in fluid communication with the bath of cryogenic fluid (see Figs. 1 and 4); an intake system (101, 102) in fluid communication with the compression chamber configured to allow the entry of fluid to be compressed into the compression chamber (Fig. 4); a movable piston (77/138) configured to ensure the compression of the fluid in the compression chamber (Fig. 4); an evacuation system (107, 110) in fluid communication with the compression chamber and configured to allow the exit of compressed fluid (Fig. 4), the movable piston being mounted at a first end of a rod (Fig. 4, note rod connected to piston end 77); and a drive mechanism configured to drive the rod in a back and forth movement in a longitudinal direction (79/80; Fig. 2, col. 8, lines 11-16), the drive mechanism comprising a rotating shaft (note rotating shaft portion of crankshaft in Fig. 2) and a mechanical system (79/80) converting the rotational movement of the rotating shaft into a translational movement of a head (78/85) sliding in the longitudinal direction and to which a second end of the rod is connected (Fig. 2, via ball socket joint).
Williams is not explicit about the drive mechanism comprising a motor. However, Clemens discloses a compressor arrangement which uses a drive mechanism comprising a motor (502, see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a motor as taught by Clemens into the apparatus of Williams as a motor is a compact, well known power source that can provide continuous, reliable power input.
Williams also does not disclose the head is slidably mounted and guided by two fixed guide rails located on either side of the head, and in that the head and/or a rail comprises an elastic portion, said elastic portion being configured to generate on the rail or rails a force transverse to the longitudinal direction, and in that the elastic portion comprises a spring or a deformable zone and is prestressed. However, Voelund discloses an apparatus having a piston/rod arrangement (3/4) whereby a head of the rod is attached to a crosshead (5) guided by two rails (12 which could also broadly viewed to include the triangular portions between which the stiffeners are sandwiched). As can be appreciated from paragraph 2, Voelund acknowledges the asymmetrical forces at the crosshead during back-and-forth motion the contact pressures which increase and decrease during the stroke of the piston and, if not compensated for, lead to high friction. The rail arrangement of Voelund addresses this problem with an elastic portion which utilizes recesses (24) within stiffeners (16) compressed by supporting rods (23). These recesses provide lateral elasticity and allow the rails to deform transversely to the longitudinal direction when subjected to a load and can thereby adjust to asymmetrical forces (see paragraphs 5-6, 11, 28-30 and 36) and provide a continuous force, e.g., from TDC to BDC. The elastic portion of the rails are prestressed by way of the insertion of the supporting rods (23). As such, this arrangement constitutes a resilient portion in the form of a deformable zone and is prestressed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize an elastic portion as taught by Voelund into the apparatus of Williams in order to reduce friction losses and improve efficiency (see paragraph 5).
Claim 15: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the compression of the fluid in the compression chamber is obtained by traction or compression of the rod (note crankshaft rotation imparted to rod in Fig. 2 of Williams), said traction or compression generating a transverse thrust of the head on one of the rails in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction (the circular rotation of Williams’ crank motion will impart a transverse thrust component on one of the rails, incorporated from Voelund), and in that the force generated by the elastic portion is in the opposite direction to this thrust (the elastic portion, incorporated into Williams from Voelund, will reactively provide an opposite force from the rod).
Claim 16: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the elastic portion is configured to generate on the rail or rails a transverse force having, in absolute value, an intensity less than or equal to the maximum intensity of the thrust force (Examiner noting that the recesses that provide the elasticity will deform against the force of the rod, due to having a smaller intensity of the rod’s force).
Claim 17: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the elastic portion is located between a central zone of the head and one of the two rails (note Fig. 5 in Voelund; Examiner noting the elastic portion sandwiched between the triangular side portions of the rail and the head).
Claim 18: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the elastic portion is located between one of the two rails and a fixed support of said rail (Fig. 5, note an elastic portion between a rail on one side and a triangular side portion on the other side).
Claim 19: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that in the operating configuration, the rod is movable with a back and forth movement in a vertical longitudinal direction (as can be appreciated from Williams, Fig. 2 and Clemens, Fig. 5).
Claim 20: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the mechanical system converting the rotational movement of the rotating shaft into a translational movement of the head is of the connecting rod and crank type (as can be appreciated from Williams, Fig. 2 and Clemens, Fig. 5).
Claim 21: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches the mechanical system converting the rotational movement of the rotating shaft into a translational movement of the head is connected to a central zone of the head via a ball joint or pivot connection (see Williams, Fig. 2, note 78), said connection being located on a longitudinal straight line passing through the axis of translation of the rod (Fig. 2), said straight line being further secant to the straight line passing through the rotating shaft of the associated power source (Fig. 2).
Claim 22: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches disclose that the head is slidably mounted in the guide rails via a guide system with rolling element (e.g., Examiner notes that the wrist pin arrangement, 80, can be broadly viewed as a guiding system for the head).
Claim 23: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches that the apparatus is of the type with one compression stage, that is to say that the fluid is compressed only once between the intake system and the evacuation system (as can be appreciated from Figs. 2 and 4 of Williams).
Claim 26: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Modified Williams further teaches a station for filling tanks or pipes with pressurized gas, comprising a source of liquefied gas (e.g., a transport truck or 21/24), a withdrawal circuit having a first end connected to the source and at least one second end intended to be connected to a tank to be filled (e.g., the other of 21/24 or a transport truck), the withdrawal circuit comprising a compression apparatus (26/20) as claimed in Claim 14 (see Fig. 1 in Williams).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 3,251,602) in view of Clemens (US20100275774) and Voelund (JP20043479A) and in further view of Chalk (US20070028628).
Claim 24: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Williams is not explicit about the apparatus is of the type with two compression stages, such that the fluid is compressed twice between the intake system and the evacuation system, the apparatus comprising two compression chambers, the intake system communicating with a first compression chamber, a transfer system communicating with the first and the second compression chamber and configured to allow the transfer of fluid compressed in the first compression chamber to the second compression chamber, the movable piston alternately compressing the fluid in the first and second compression chambers in its direction of movement, the evacuation system communicating with the second compression chamber. However, Chalk teaches a pump system with two compression stages (Fig. 1-8) in which the fluid is compressed twice between the intake system and the evacuation system (Figs. 1-8), the apparatus comprising two compression chambers (48, 50), the intake system communicating with a first compression chamber (Fig. 5), a transfer system (52) communicating with the first and the second compression chamber and configured to allow the transfer of fluid compressed in the first compression chamber (48) to the second compression chamber (50), the movable piston alternately compressing the fluid in the first and second compression chambers in its direction of movement (Figs. 1-8), the evacuation system communicating with the second compression chamber (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to substitute Chalk’s two-stage compressor in place of William’s single-stage compressor so as to be able to compress the fluid to a higher desired output pressure.
Claim 25: Williams, Clemens, Voelund and Chalk teach the previous limitations. Chalk further discloses that the second compression chamber (50) is delimited by a portion of the body of the movable piston and a fixed wall of the apparatus (see Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 3,251,602) in view of Clemens (US20100275774) and Voelund (JP20043479A) and in further view of Werlen (FR3109964A3).
Claim 27: Williams, Clemens and Voelund teach the previous limitations. Williams does not mention that the source of liquified gas contains liquified hydrogen; however, Werlen teaches a cryopump apparatus whose source of liquified gas contains liquified hydrogen (see paragraph 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize liquidized gas such as hydrogen in William’s apparatus as suggested by Werlen so as to broaden the pumps versatility as hydrogen is a vital commodity in the energy sector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Voelund fails to teach an “active rebalancing”. However, the claim language only requires there to be a “continuous force” and Examiner notes that during, say, the interval between TDC to BDC, the elastic guiderails will provide a continuous varying reaction force opposite the varying crankshaft forces which will have a lateral force subcomponent. Examiner notes, as an aside, that the singular spring or deformable zone will necessarily provide alternating positive and negative force rebalancing during a complete crankshaft cycle and thusly will encounter momentary zero force instances when the rebalancing force transitions from positive to negative value or vice versa, which precludes any absolute designations of continuous forces. Therefore, Examiner believes it reasonable to consider a subcomponent of the complete crankshaft cycle as the more appropriate use of the phrase “continuous force”. Applicant next argues that Voelund is in a materially different field of endeavor because it operates in the context of internal combustion engines. However, Examiner notes Voelund’s classification under F16C29/00 which relates to “bearings for parts moving only linearly”. This is a noteworthy structural aspect in the operation of both Voeland and Williams as each utilizes a bearing arrangement to help transition rotary motion to linear motion and each could inform the other of alternative means of implementation such as making the transition simpler or more efficient or what have you. While Applicant also faults the successful combination of the references, Examiner notes that the only aspects imported from Voelund would be the elastic guide rail arrangement. Furthermore, as far as oil contamination goes, a skilled artisan would have the wherewithal to mitigate any oil leakage/contamination between the crankcase and cryogenic pumping regions. Examiner notes many prior art references with oil/lubrication in close proximity to cryogenic pumping operations (see, e.g., Josephian US 3,299,828). Additionally, Applicant notes lateral instability with respect to Voelund but fails to also appreciate that combustion engine settings still require strict lateral deviation tolerances for its associated piston to operate properly and that the disparity between the two contexts is not as extreme as Applicant makes it. Reducing friction in a crankshaft to linear motion apparatus, while general, is nevertheless a worthy incentive as it can reduce the amount of input energy required to operate the plunger/piston. The zero-leak oil requirements brought forward by Applicant could be handled in a manner like many other prior art references, such as Josephian. Additionally, the low temperature / high temperature disparity arguments brought about by Applicant are not persuasive because internal combustion engines and their associated components will also be required to operate and handle freezing, sub-zero conditions. For these reasons Examiner believes that a continued reliance upon Williams and Voelund is reasonably warranted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights