DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of March 30, 2026 which amended claims 1, 10 and 11; and canceled claims 5-9.
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) 1, 4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schierl (USPN 3,001,692) in view of Bauermeister et al (DE 1959754, cited by Applicant), as evidenced by Shin et al (USPN 9,745,986), and further in view of Fujino et al (USPN 4,219,306)
With regards to claims 1 and 11, Schierl discloses an integrally geared compressor (see Fig. 1), comprising: a gear casing (10); a bull gear (4) supported for rotation in the gear casing; a plurality of pinion (5,7) shafts (6- first pinion shaft, 8-second pinion shaft) supported for rotation in the gear casing and coupled to the bull gear; a first compressor unit (11,13) and a second compressor unit (12,14) overhung (clearly shown in Fig. 1) on opposing ends of one (6) of the pinon shafts, the first compressor and the second compressor each comprising a gas inlet and a gas outlet; a centrifugal compressor unit (15,17) overhung on another of pinion shafts (8); a line (line is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and in the Schierl reference is the flow pathway including the nozzle 25, see Fig. 1 & 2, the intercooler 26 and the nozzle 28) connecting the gas outlet of the first compressor unit directly to the gas inlet of the second compressor unit (the inlet and the outlets of all the compressors in Schierl are clearly shown in Fig. 1); and, Schierl discloses a first centrifugal compressor unit (15, 17) drivingly coupled to a first end of the second pinion shaft (7, 8) in an overhung fashion; and a second centrifugal compressor unit (16, 18) drivingly coupled to a second end of the second pinion shaft in an overhung fashion, wherein the respective pinion on the first pinion shaft and the second pinion shaft are configured to cause a first rotational speed (inherent) for the first axial compressor unit and the second axial compressor unit and a second rotational speed (inherent) for the first centrifugal compressor unit and the second centrifugal compressor unit. Schierl also discloses the newly added material amended to claims 1, 10 and 11 that the compressor units coupled to the pinion shafts are arranged in sequence to stepwise compress fluid. Schierl also discloses that the first and second pinion shafts have bodies extending from the first (right) side of the gear casing to a second (left) side of the gear casing, as set forth in claim 11.
Schierl does not disclose that the first compressor unit overhung on the first end of the first pinion shaft is an axial compressor unit or that the first rotational speed is different than the second rotational speed, that the second compressor is an axial compressor and that the first axial compressor unit has a volumetric flow rate that is higher than the other compressor units.
Bauermeister et al discloses a similar four stage compressor including a bull gear driving two pinion shafts having compressor units mounted in overhung fashion on the ends of the pinion shafts, further the first compressor stage is an axial compressor unit 11, 12 mounted in an overhung fashion at a first end of a pinion shaft (7, 2, 10) and, as made clear by the different sizes/diameters of the pinion gears 3 and 4, the first rotational speed of pinion shaft 7 is different than the second rotational speed of pinion shaft 8 (the figure of Bauermeister et al clearly shows the diameter of pinion 4 being larger than the diameter of pinion 3). Fujino et al discloses a similar sequential compression system driven by a gearbox; and at col. 6 lines 7-10 teaches that the flow rate at the entrance or succeeding stages is approximately 50% of the preceding stage, see also col. 1 lines 33-43. Therefore the first compressor would have a volumetric flow rate that is higher than the other compressor units.
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 an axial compressor unit, as taught by Bauermeister et al, for the centrifugal compressor unit, as taught by Schierl, as the first compressor stage and for the second compressor stage of the integrally geared compressor since axial compressors and centrifugal compressors are recognized as equivalence for their use in the compression art, as evidence of this see Shin et al at col. 4 lines 4-9 which discloses that in a gear driven multi-stage compressor both axial compressors and centrifugal compressors maybe utilized as the compression stages, and selection of either of these known equivalents to provide the first compression stage would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, 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 select a gear ratio for the pinions in the Schierl integrally geared compressor which would result in the speeds of pinion shafts being different, such as was done in the Bauermeister et al integrally geared multi-stage compressor, in order to obtain the predictable result of attaining the correct driving speed for a particular impeller and centrifugal compressor design, see KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, it would have been obvious to make the volumetric flow rate of the first compressor be the highest flow rate so that continuous compression is maintained through the stages.
With regards to claim 4, Bauermeister et al discloses wherein the first axial compressor unit is a multi-stage axial compressor unit (the drawing clearly discloses the axial compressor being a multi-stage unit).
With regards to claim 10, Schierl discloses an integrally geared compressor (see Fig. 1), comprising: a gear casing (10); a bull gear (4) supported for rotation in the gear casing; a plurality of pinion (5,7) shafts (6- first pinion shaft, 8-second pinion shaft) supported for rotation in the gear casing and coupled to the bull gear; a first compressor unit (11,13) and a second compressor unit (12,14) overhung (clearly shown in Fig. 1) on opposing ends of one (6) of the pinon shafts, the first compressor and the second compressor each comprising a gas inlet and a gas outlet; a first centrifugal compressor unit (15,17) and a second centrifugal compressor unit (16, 18) overhung on another of pinion shafts (8); a line (line is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and in the Schierl reference is the flow pathway including the nozzle 25, see Fig. 1 & 2, the intercooler 26 and the nozzle 28) connecting the gas outlet of the first compressor unit directly to the gas inlet of the second compressor unit (the inlet and the outlets of all the compressors in Schierl are clearly shown in Fig. 1); wherein the respective pinion on the first pinion shaft and the second pinion shaft are configured to cause a first rotational speed (inherent) for the first axial compressor unit and the second axial compressor unit and a second rotational speed (inherent) for the first centrifugal compressor unit and the second centrifugal compressor unit. Schierl also discloses the newly added material amended to claims 1, 10 and 11 that the compressor units coupled to the pinion shafts are arranged in sequence to stepwise compress fluid.
Schierl does not disclose that the first rotational speed is different than the second rotational speed or that the first axial compressor unit has a volumetric flow rate that is higher than the other compressor units.
Bauermeister et al discloses a similar four stage compressor including a bull gear driving two pinion shafts having compressor units mounted in overhung fashion on the ends of the pinion shafts, further the first rotational speed of pinion shaft 7 is different than the second rotational speed of pinion shaft 8 (the figure of Bauermeister et al clearly shows the diameter of pinion 4 being larger than the diameter of pinion 3 and thus teaches of the different speeds). Fujino et al discloses a similar sequential compression system driven by a gearbox; and at col. 6 lines 7-10 teaches that the flow rate at the entrance or succeeding stages is approximately 50% of the preceding stage, see also col. 1 lines 33-43. Therefore the first compressor would have a volumetric flow rate that is higher than the other compressor units.
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 select a gear ratio for the pinions in the Schierl integrally geared compressor which would result in the speeds of pinion shafts being different, such as was done in the Bauermeister et al integrally geared multi-stage compressor, in order to obtain the predictable result of attaining the correct driving speed for a particular impeller and centrifugal compressor design, see KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.__, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, it would have been obvious to make the volumetric flow rate of the first compressor be the highest flow rate so that continuous compression is maintained through the stages.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schierl in view of Bauermeister et al, as evidenced by Shin et al, and Fujino et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nab et al (USPN 9,512,849).
With regards to claim 2, as set forth above Schierl in view of Bauermeister et al, evidenced by Shin et al, and Fujino et al discloses the invention of claim 1 substantially as claimed and additionally discloses that the gas outlet (in Schierl Fig. 1 the connection from casing 14 to duct 29) of the first axial compressor unit is a radial gas outlet. Bauermeister et al do not disclose that the gas inlet of the first axial compressor unit is an axial gas inlet.
Nab et al discloses a series of axial compressors driven via a gear train with a first of the axial compressor stages 6 having an axial inlet 26.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to move the radial inlet of Bauermeister et al axial compressor to be an axial inlet, as taught by Nab et al, since this is a well-known arrangement for such a compressor inlet and because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japinske, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With regards to claim 3, the Examiner previously gave official notice that axial compressors having a radial outlet with a vaned diffuser are well known, which was not challenged. This is taken as an admission that this material is prior art. At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to include a diffuser in order to further compress the fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 on (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
CGF
April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights