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 .
The claims received 9/30/2025 are entered. Claims 13-20 are new.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“gas replenishment structure” includes the generic/nonce term “structure” coupled with the function of “gas replenishment”. A return to the specification provides element 400, which is an inlet. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
The term “throttling device” of claim 12 is not interpreted under §112f as the term is understood in the art to cover a broad class of structures that takes its name from the function performed, i.e. throttling. A term is not required to denote a specific structure of precise physical structure in order to avoid application of 35 U.S.C. §112(f). MPEP 2181(I)(A).
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 1-20 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “wherein the annular gap is configured to leave a portion of the male rotor and the female rotor exposed when embedded in the groove of the male rotor and the female rotor.” There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure. The term “exposed” is not within the original disclosure. Moreover the respective rotors are within a housing such that no portion of the rotors is exposed.
The phrase “annular gap” is entirely absent from the original disclosure.
The phrase “circumferential gap” is entirely absent from the original disclosure. Moreover the “circumferential gap” of claim 20 depends from claim 17 thus the annular gap and circumferential gap cannot be the same gap. The original disclosure references “a small gap can be left between the two” where the “two” refer to one of the rotors (110 or 120) and the housing 200.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “wherein the annular gap is configured to leave a portion of the male rotor and the female rotor exposed when embedded in the groove of the male rotor and the female rotor.” As noted above there is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure. The respective rotors are within a housing such that no portion of the rotors is exposed thus it is unclear what the meaning of the term is within the claim(s).
Claims 1 and 17 recite “the annular gap” (singular) but recite earlier “an annular gap in each” (plural) antecedent basis is unclear.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akerman (US 3,209,990).
Regarding claims 1 and 17-18, Akerman screw compressor, comprising:
a rotor set comprising a pair of male rotor and female rotor meshing with each other (6,8 and 7,9), where axis of a main shaft of the male rotor and axis of a main shaft of the female rotor are parallel to each other, and the male rotor and the female rotor are respectively provided with grooves with the same width in an axial direction that are arranged circumferentially around them in the same radial direction, wherein a bottom surface of grooves of the male rotor and a bottom surface of grooves of the female rotor are an outer circumferential surface of the main shaft of the male rotor and an outer circumferential surface of the main shaft of the female rotor, respectively;
a rotor housing (1) for accommodating the rotor set; and
a partition plate (30), fixed on the rotor housing (1), for dividing the rotor housing into a low-pressure stage housing (at bores 2 and 3) and a high-pressure stage housing (at bores 4 and 5) connected to each other, wherein the partition plate has a first annular section and a second annular section connected to each other, where the first annular section and the second annular section are respectively embedded in a groove of the male rotor and that of the female rotor and have the same width in the axial direction as the groove of the male rotor and that of the female rotor, and the first annular section has a free end and a connecting end connected to the second annular section, and the second annular section has a free end and a connecting end connected to the first annular section;
PNG
media_image1.png
387
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, a diameter of an annular outer surface of the first annular section is the same as a diameter of a circle where tooth tips of male rotor teeth of the male rotor are located, and a diameter of an annular inner surface of the first annular section is the same as a diameter of the main shaft of the male rotor (2:59 to 3:11 describe the clearance and thus said elements have substantially the same diameter; “substantially airtight fit but with sufficient clearance”); and
wherein, a diameter of an annular outer surface of the second annular section is the same or substantially the same as a diameter of a circle where tooth tips of female rotor teeth of the female rotor are located, and a diameter of an annular inner surface of the second annular section is the same as a diameter of the main shaft of the female rotor (2:59 to 3:11 describe the clearance and thus said elements have substantially the same diameter; “substantially airtight fit but with sufficient clearance”),
wherein the partition plate further comprises an annular gap (46 and 47 or gaps at annulus to receive fasteners) in each of the first annular section and the second annular section, wherein the annular gap is configured to leave a portion of the male rotor and the female rotor exposed when embedded int eh groove of the male rotor and the female rotor (as noted above the meaning of the this limitation is entirely unclear, none the less the rotors extend through the annulus of the partition plate and are thus exposed).
Regarding claim 2, Akerman discloses the connecting end of the first annular section and the connecting end of the second annular section form an intermediate section of the partition plate, where the intermediate section is located between the male rotor and the female rotor (shown in figure 5, where 28 and 29 are sealing portions of the male and female rotors).
Regarding claim 3, Akerman discloses the first annular section and the second annular section are integrally formed (as identified in annotated figure at claim 1, both sections are portions of integral piece 30A).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Akerman discloses the free end of the first annular section is provided with outlines that are the same as contour outlines of male rotor teeth of the male rotor, the free end of the second annular section is provided with outlines that are the same as contour outlines of female rotor tooth of the female rotor, and the intermediate section is provided with outlines that are the same as contour outlines of male rotor teeth of the male rotor and/or outlines that are the same as contour outlines of female rotor teeth of the female rotor (all the respective elements are round and thus are the same).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Akerman discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
403
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, a diameter of an annular outer surface of the first annular extension section is the same as a diameter of a circle where tooth tips of male rotor teeth of the male rotor are located, and a diameter of an annular inner surface of the first annular extension section is the same as the diameter of the main shaft of the male rotor; and wherein, a diameter of an annular outer surface of the second annular extension section is the same as a diameter of a circle where tooth tips of female rotor teeth of the female rotor are located, and a diameter of an annular inner surface of the second annular extension section is the same as the diameter of the main shaft of the female rotor;
wherein, an end face of the first annular extension section facing the high-pressure stage housing is flush with an end face of the first annular section facing the high-pressure stage housing, and an end face of the second annular extension section facing the high-pressure stage housing is flush with an end face of the second annular section facing the high-pressure stage housing (as shown in figure 2 the partition plate and annular extensions thereof divide the high and lower pressure sections); and
wherein, a width of the first annular extension section in the axial direction is the same as a width of the second annular extension section in the axial direction, and is smaller than a width of the first annular section in the axial direction and a width of the second annular section in the axial direction (width in the axial dimension of the extension sections being smaller than the annular sections is shown in figure 10 at region of flange 48).
Regarding claim 6, Akerman discloses the other end of the first annular extension section is provided with outlines that are the same as contour outlines of male rotor teeth of the male rotor, and the other end of the second annular extension section is provided with outlines that are the same as contour outline of female rotor teeth of the female rotor (all the respective elements are round and thus are the same).
Regarding claim 7, Akerman discloses the first annular extension section, the second annular extension section, the first annular section, and the second annular section are integrally formed (as bolted together in figures 5 and 10 said elements are integral).
Regarding claim 8, Akerman discloses seal structures are respectively provided on the annular inner surface of the first annular section, the annular inner surface of the second annular section, the annular inner surface of the first annular extension section, and the annular inner surface of the second annular extension section (said elements of the partition plate seal with 28 and 29 as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Akerman discloses the partition plate is fixed to the rotor housing by bolt connection (bolt 37 shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Akerman discloses the low-pressure stage housing and the high-pressure stage housing are integrally constructed to form the rotor housing (1; shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Akerman discloses a starting end of a low-pressure stage rotor pair of the low-pressure stage housing corresponds to a first-stage suction port and a tail end of the low-pressure stage rotor pair corresponds to a first-stage discharge port (2:1-8 describe two stage arrangement).
Regarding claim 14, Akerman discloses a starting end of a high-pressure stage rotor pair of the high-pressure stage housing corresponds to a second-stage suction port and a tail end of the high-pressure stage rotor pair corresponds to a second-stage discharge port (2:1-8 describe two stage arrangement).
Regarding claim 15, Akerman discloses a first-stage discharge port of the low-pressure stage housing is located on a first side of the partition plate facing the low-pressure stage housing and a second-stage suction port of the high-pressure stage housing is located on a second side of the partition plate facing the high-pressure stage housing (the partition plate divides the low and high compressor stages as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Akerman discloses a first connecting notch is formed circumferentially between the free end and the connecting end of the first annular section to form a first-stage discharge port of the low-pressure stage housing, and wherein a second connecting notch is formed circumferentially between the free end and the connecting end of the second annular section to form a second-stage suction port of the high-pressure stage housing (3:11-33).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akerman (US 3,209,990).
Regarding claims 11-12, Akerman discloses the screw compressor of claim 1, but lacks a gas replenishment structure and use in a refrigeration system.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that screw compressors are old and well known for use in refrigeration cycles (including a condenser, throttling device, and evaporator). Moreover it is known to provide compressors with economizer inlets, corresponding to a gas replenishment structure in order to optimize the cycle. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Akerman provides for a screw compressor. Official notice is taken to evidence that refrigeration cycles utilize screw compressors. Merely applying the known screw compressor to the known purpose of compressing refrigerant is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results. Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a gas replenishment structure in order to economize the cycle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed above the claims as presented are not supported by the original disclosure nor are they clear. The examiner also noted that Mosemann (previously cited) discloses an intermediate partition plate that does not fully circumferentially enclose the respective rotors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kasahara et al (US 11,773,853) multi-stage screw compressor.
Mosemann et al (US 7,618,248) intermediate plate of screw compressor.
Schibbye (US 3,283,996) screw rotor.
Nilsson (US 3,102,681) rotary piston housing.
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights