DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I drawn to Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4 September 2026.
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 and all dependent claims 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 recites the limitation "the cover" in lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant previously establishes “a cover formed to surround the compressor assembly” in line 8 and “a cover configured to accommodate the cover” in line 10. It is unclear whether the cover of line 10 is referring to the cover established in lines 8 or 10, and all additional references to “the cover” such as in Claim 5 line 1, Claim 7 line 1, Claim 9 line 1 and Claim 10 lines 1, 5 are similarly unclear as to which cover they are referring to.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such controller is previously established.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the compressor" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 which recites “a compressor assembly”, however it is unclear if this is what is intended as Claim 2 establishes “the compressor assembly comprises a compressor” which indicates that the compressor is not referring to the compressor assembly. No such compressor is established in Claims 1 or 10.
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, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20190115802A).
With regards to Claim 1 Lee teaches:
An air compressor, part 30, which reads on applicant's claimed compressor assembly configured to compress air and supply compressed air. An oxygen generator, part 80, which reads on applicant's claimed adsorption bed assembly. The oxygen generator comprises a first adsorption unit, part 81, an oxygen storage cylinder part 82, and a second adsorption unit, part 83, which are configured to adsorb nitrogen from the compressed air supplied by the compressor assembly through a pressure swing adsorption process to produce concentrated oxygen. (See Lee Paragraphs 16-28, Paragraphs 51-56, Paragraph 5) An outer case, part 10, a support case, part 20, and an inner case, part 40 which reads on applicant's claimed cover formed to surround the compressor assembly and the adsorption bed assembly. The support case, part 20, Is configured to cover the outer case, part 10, and has an air inlet through which air is supplied to the compressor assembly. The air supplied through the air inlet passes through a space where the compressor assembly is disposed and then is discharged to an outside through the top of the outer case, part 10. (See Lee Fig. 3 and Paragraph 165)
With regards to Claim 5 Lee teaches:
The outer case, part 10, has an inner portion which accommodates the oxygen generation unit which reads on applicant's claimed adsorption bed assembly and an inner case, part 40, which reads on applicant's claimed second accommodating part in which the air compressor, part 30, is accommodated. The rear side plate, part 24a, one side of the inner case part 43, and the support case, part 21, which reads on applicant's claimed partition wall dividing the first accommodating part and the second accommodating part. The partition wall, part 24a and 43, comprise a connection passage, through which the air flow pipe Part L3 is connected, connecting the first accommodating part and the second accommodating part through which purge nitrogen discharged from the adsorption bed assembly is capable of moving to the second accommodating part after being discharged from the oxygen generator. (See Lee Fig. 2-4)
With regards to Claim 6 Lee teaches:
The cold air discharge portion is connected to the air flow pipe (L3) disposed directly below the vent of 13 the support case 20, the air flow pipe (L3) is connected to the oxygen generating unit 80, which reads on applicant's claimed heat exchanger disposed below the compressor assembly and the adsorption bed assembly. (See Lee Paragraph 35, 111-117)
With regards to Claim 9 Lee teaches:
An outer case, part 10, a support case, part 20, and an inner case, part 40. The covers comprise a pair of lower covers, part 10 and 23, formed to surround a lower portion of the adsorption bed assembly, and a pair of upper covers, parts 43 and 10, which are formed to surround an upper portion of the adsorption bed assembly and the compressor assembly. Lee Fig. 3 and Paragraph 165, and Figures 2 and 4)
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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20190115802A) as applied above in rejection of Claim 1 in view of Liu (CN 218307105 U).
With regards to Claim 7:
Lee does not explicitly teach:
The material the covers are made of.
Liu teaches:
A sound insulation cabin, part 15, which comprises a foam plastic or polyester fibre, to better absorb the noise generated by the air compressor.
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for Lee does not teach the cover material. Liu teaches that it is known to use a foam plastic as a cover for an air compressor in order to suppress the noise of the compressor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cover to comprise a foam plastic as taught by Liu, since Liu states at pg. 3 paragraph 2 that “the inner wall of the sound insulation cabin is provided with a sound absorbing coating, the sound absorbing coating is made of foam plastic or polyester fibre, so as to better absorb the noise generated by the air compressor.” See MPEP 2144
With regards to Claim 8:
Lee in view of Liu discloses the claimed invention except for the material choice of “EPP” which is interpreted in view of the specification to mean expanded polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cover of Lee to have foam plastic as taught in Liu and to make that foam plastic of expanded polypropylene which is a known foam plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In the instant case expanded polypropylene is obvious because of its known sound dampening properties as a type of foam plastic. See MPEP 2144.07
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, and dependent claims 3 and 4 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to Claim 2, 3, and 4:
Lee does not teach mounting the compressor upside-down such that the head is positioned downwards. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to do this as evidenced by Algar Air NPL “Can you mount an air compressor upside down” as doing so is likely to result in significant oil leakage, and other maintenance issues for the compressor. As such applicant’s claimed invention is not obvious over the applicable prior art. No other applicable prior art was found which anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 10:
While Lee does teach a first cooling pathway (from 21 to 30 to H2 to H1 to the outside through the top of the casing which anticipates Claim 10 lines 8-11) and a second cooling pathway (through 21 to the space containing the controller, part 90, though the partition wall, part 23, to the space inside of inner case part 40 where the compressor is placed then through the partition wall from L1 to L2, to part 23 by way of the tube part L3 to the place the adsorption bed is placed an then through tubes L5 and L6 to the outside of the outer case part 10) it does not teach the third claimed cooling pathway, Claim 10 lines 17-22, and the claim as a whole is not anticipated or rendered obvious by Lee. Other applicable prior art was not found which anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights