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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 1, the phrase “the quantity of lubricant being application to” should be changed to -- a quantity of lubricant being applied to --. In line 4, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “lubricant”. In line 6, the phrase -- of the -- should be inserted after the word “each”. In line 11, the phrase “the amount” should be changed to -- an amount --. In line 17, the phrase “an actual amount” should be changed to -- the actual amount --. In lines 17-18, the phrase “a specific time period” should be changed to -- the specific time period --.
In claim 2, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “memory”. In line 3, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “indicating”.
In claim 3, line 2, the phrase “a display” should be changed to -- the display --.
In claim 4, line 2, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “receiver”.
In claim 5, line 8, the phrase “the frequency” should be changed to -- a frequency --. In line 9, the phrase “the actual amount of lubricant” should be changed to -- an actual amount of lubricant --. In lines 10-11, the phrase “the number of cycles” should be changed to -- a number of cycles --. In lines 16-17, the phase “the discrepancy” should be changed to -- a discrepancy --.
In claim 6, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “determining”. In line 3, the phrase “a time period” should be changed to -- the time period --.
In claim 7, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “determining”.
In claim 8, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “inputting”.
In claim 9, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “alerting”. In line 1, the phrase “an operator” should be changed to -- the operator --. In line 2, the phrase “a mobile computing device” should be changed to -- the mobile computing device --.
In claim 10, line 2, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “alerting”. In line 1, the phrase “an operator” should be changed to -- the operator --.
In claim 11, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “inputting”.
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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-12 and 13-14, it is unclear whether the phrase “single input/single output divider block” is the same element or different element as the “multiple output divider block” in line 4 of the claim. Please clarify.
In claim 2, line 2, the phrase “the actual lube flow” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite since it is unclear where this lube flow is flowing from and how this actual lube flow is being determined/measured. Please clarify. In line 3, the phrase “the expected lube flow” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite since it is unclear where this lube flow is flowing from and how this expected lube flow is being determined/measured. Please clarify.
In claim 5, line 7, the phrase “the amount of lubricant” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite since it is unclear where this lubricant is coming and ejected from and whether this amount of lubricant in line 7 is the same as the prescribed amount of lubricant in line 2 of this claim. Please clarify. In line 19, the phrase “the compressor system” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 2, the phrase “the cycle signals” lacks antecedent basis. Also, the phrase “receiving by the cycle signals” is not clearly understood how the cycle signals is receiving. Please clarify.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, the clause “the amount of lubricant ejected during each cycle determining the number of cycles in a time period comprises” is not clearly understood and worded. Please clarify.
In claim 10, line 1, the phrase “the processing device” lacks antecedent basis. In line 3, the phrase “the processing device” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, the clause “the amount of lubricant ejected during each cycle determining the number of cycles in a time period comprises” is not clearly understood and worded. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058278 (Spiegl et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Spiegl et al. discloses a lubrication system for piston machines comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-10, a system 23 (e.g. lubrication system; paragraph [0041]) for detecting whether the quantity of lubricant being application to a compressor (e.g. compressors; paragraphs [0002],[0008]) is correct comprising a lubricant pump 33 (e.g. feed pump from lubricant reservoir; paragraph [0042]); a multiple output divider block (e.g. divider block systems; paragraph [0002]) for providing lubricant to multiple injection points on a compressor system; multiple single input/single output divider block analyzers 10 (e.g. electronic unit; paragraph [0045]) where each multiple single input/single output divider block analyzers in line with an injection point (e.g. injection point would be where the lubricant injectors 1 are positioned; Figure 1); an analyzer 26 (e.g. central control unit includes instructions, calibration data and control commands inherently includes an input device for the operator to input instructions and a display like an indicator to warn an operator; paragraphs [0043],[0047],[0029]) having an input and a display comprising a processor and a memory storing computer instruction to be executed by the processor to: accept input of the amount of lubricant per cycle of a single input/single output divider block (e.g. the quantity of lubricant delivered for each activation is detected by flow sensor 8 along flow path 7 to be processed by electronic unit 10; paragraph [0045],[0047]); accept signals from a proximity switch 14 (e.g. an electromagnetic actuation element like a magnet coil actives the armature at an active phase where power supply line is used for supplying power to the magnet coil; paragraphs [0047],[0065]; Figure 5) indicating cycles of the single input/single output divider block; calculate an actual amount of lubricant being delivered in a specific time period (e.g. central control unit is provided precise and updated information regarding the quantity of lubricant delivered; paragraphs [0047],[0049]); compare the actual amount of lubricant being delivered in a specific time period to a prespecified expected amount of lubricant being delivered (e.g. central control unit provided with a feedback about the actual quantity of lubricant delivered during a supply current pulse; paragraphs [0047],[0049]); indicate on the display whether or not the actual amount of lubricant delivered in the specified time period is within a specified range (e.g. the system sends a warning to an operator for maintenance; paragraph [0029]). (See, paragraphs [0041] to [0075]).
With regards to claim 5, the claim is directed to a method claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058278 (Spiegl et al.).
With regards to claim 2, Spiegl et al. does not disclose to form a ratio of the actual lube flow to the expected lube flow and indicating whether or not the ratio is within a specified range. However, to have set such mathematical characteristics and calculation as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention, namely to indicate whether the amount of lubricant delivered is within a specified range.
With regards to claim 3, Spiegl et al. does not disclose the analyzer 26 includes a touch screen for entering data and a display for displaying data. However, to have set such structural characteristics for the analyzer to have a touch screen and a display as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities and a well-known concept in this day and age to employ a touch screen for entering and displaying data that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention, namely to allow the operator to input data and visualize data.
With regards to claim 4, Speigl et al. further discloses the analyzer 26 includes a Bluetooth transmitter and receiver (e.g. wireless connection; paragraph [0048]); however, the reference does not disclose outputting on a mobile computing device. However, to have set such structural characteristics for the analyzer to transmit data to a mobile computing device as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities and a well-known concept in this day and age to transmit and display data to a mobile computing device, like a cellphone or personal tablet, that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention, namely to allow the operator to input data and visualize data remotely.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, Speigl et al. does not such parameters (receiving by the cycle signals from the fluid flow analyzer and determining the number of cycles in a time period to determine the frequency of the fluid flow analyzer; and manually timing cycles of fluid flow analyzer and entering the cycle timing into the processing system) as in these claims. However, to have set such test characteristics as in these claims are considered to have been a matter of mathematical choice possibilities and measurements that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, the method claims are commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, the method claims are commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Sato, Aamand and Maki, are related to lubrication systems for dosing lubricating oil to piston machines and cylinders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights