DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1, 4-7, 12-14 and 17-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 8-11 and 15-16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 8/21/25 , with respect to the rejection of original claim 11 in view of the current amendments has been fully considered, and is persuasive. The result-effective variable rationale is withdrawn, however, a new rejection is made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 12-14, 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (JP 2009191635), hereinafter: “Hasegawa”, in view of Mee et al. (WO 03089770), hereinafter: “Mee”. The English translation of Hasegawa provided to be referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 1
Hasegawa teaches:
A compressor (1) comprising:
a rotor (3,4,9) which extends along a rotation axis (O),
a housing (10),
wherein the housing is arranged around the rotor (Fig 1),
wherein the housing has an axial inflow (12) and downstream of the axial inflow has a first compressor stage (14) and further downstream of the first compressor stage has a radial outflow (20,22),
wherein the radial outflow leads through the housing (Fig 1),
furthermore, an impeller (3) which is arranged on the rotor (Fig 1),
characterized by an injection apparatus (30) for injecting a liquid (E) into the axial inflow (Fig 1; P[0021], P[0022]),
wherein a process fluid (A+F, air + water droplets) is initially drawn in and a quantity of injected liquid is carried out in accordance with a temperature and relative humidity of a medium drawn in(air; a quantity of liquid is injected in accordance with a temperature and relative humidity of the air).
wherein an evaporation temperature of the liquid(E, water; P[0022]) is lower than the temperature of the process fluid(A+F, air + water droplets) after injection in the first compressor stage(as the temperature of the process air drops after the water droplets are added the temperature of the liquid must be lower than the temperature of the air; P[0028], furthermore since water can evaporate at any temperature, the evaporation temperature is lower than the temperature of the process fluid),
wherein the injection of the liquid is carried out via a plurality of nozzles (a plurality of spray nozzles 31 shown in Fig 3; P[0021-0022]),
wherein the compressor has an impeller inlet (at upstream end of blades 5) having an impeller inlet diameter (diameter of impeller inlet at upstream end), wherein a spacing exists between a last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet (Fig 1-3)
Hasegawa fails to teach:
wherein the control device controls the quantity of injected liquid based at least in part on the temperature and relative humidity of the medium drawn in and based at least in part on a speed of the compressor and
wherein a spacing between a last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet is 10 times the impeller inlet diameter
Mee teaches:
An analogous compressor(10) having an axial inflow(14) with an injection apparatus(16) for injecting a liquid into the inlet air stream(page 5, ln. 1-7) and a control device(18,19,22,23), wherein the control device controls the quantity of injected liquid based at least in part on the temperature and relative humidity of the medium drawn in(Page 7, ln. 25- Page 8, ln. 29) and based at least in part on a speed of the compressor(Page 13, ln. 1-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hasegawa to incorporate the teachings of Mee to use a control device to control the quantity of injected liquid based at least in part on the temperature and relative humidity of the medium drawn in and a speed of the compressor to determine the maximum amount of water that will avoid formation of ice under the existing ambient atmospheric conditions(Page 8, ln. 15-20).
Hasegawa in view of Mee fails to teach:
a spacing between a last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet is 10 times the impeller inlet diameter
However, the Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IVA for further clarification). In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches a configuration wherein the spacing between the nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet and the impeller inlet diameter visually appear to align with the claimed spacing, however, the office acknowledges there is no explicit teaching of the claimed ratio of 10 times the impeller inlet diameter in Hasegawa or Mee. However, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification mentions a spacing preference of 0.5 - 0.75 times the impeller inlet diameter, preferably 0.66 times the inlet diameter, 3 times the impeller inlet diameter, and 10 times the impeller inlet diameter in P[0055]- P[0057], the specification fails to give criticality to any of the ranges, or provide evidence of any unexpected result within any sub-genus ranges. In P[0027]-P[0028], while Applicant states “an impeller inlet of 3 times the impeller inlet diameter is proposed in order by means of liquid injection to achieve an effective reduction of the compressor drive power” and “an optimum state can be achieved when the spacing between the injection and the impeller inlet is substantially 10 times the impeller inlet diameter” , the statement provides insufficient evidence of any unexpected results with regard to any of the ranges and their resulting effect on the compressor drive power. Additionally, Applicant further notes in P[0028], “the relationship applies that the spacing of the injection from the impeller inlet may be smaller, the finer are the liquid droplets which are introduced”, which further evidences a lack of criticality and any unexpected result within any of the claimed ranges since any reduction in compressor drive power is also dependent on droplet size. In summary, while applicant’s specification discusses the claimed spacing and there is not a sufficient explanation of criticality for the claimed ratio of 10 times the impeller inlet diameter, or an explanation for the size and scale of the injection apparatus, nozzle diameters, liquid flow rate and pressure, droplet size, the compressor in general, or any of its components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing of Hasegawa in view of Mee by spacing the last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet by 10 times the impeller inlet diameter in view of case law for the purpose of tailoring the position of the injection apparatus in accordance with the impeller inlet diameter to suit the particular application in which it is being used which would allow for proper mixing and vaporization.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, would also have recognized the desirability of tailoring the position of the injection apparatus in accordance with the impeller inlet diameter to suit the particular application in which it is being used which would allow for proper mixing and vaporization. Hasegawa in view of Mee also inherently discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art that altering the spacing of the injection apparatus from the impeller inlet does not disadvantageously affect the performance of the compressor. Hasegawa in view of Mee does not explicitly disclose a spacing ratio of 10 times the impeller inlet diameter; however, there are a finite number of options for positioning of the injection apparatus within the inlet while maintaining proper functioning/performance of the device, 1x, 2x, 5x, 10x, 100x, etc... Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try spacing the last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet by 10 times the impeller inlet diameter for the purpose of tailoring the position of the injection apparatus in accordance with the impeller inlet diameter to suit the particular application in which it is being used which would allow for proper mixing and vaporization, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because compressor as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to space the last nozzle in front of the impeller and the impeller inlet by 10 times the impeller inlet diameter. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III E
In Regard to Claim 4
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the injection apparatus is configured in such a manner that the injection of the liquid is carried out within the medium which is intended to be compressed(as shown in Fig 1-3, the injection apparatus 30 is located in the inflow section 12 which takes in the medium, air A, which is to be compressed).
In Regard to Claim 5
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the injection of the liquid is carried out in front of the impeller (30 is upstream of impeller 3 as clearly shown in Fig 1).
In Regard to Claim 7
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the compressor has an inlet (axial inflow 12 is part of the compressor inlet; Fig 1-3; P[0015]) and the injection of the liquid is carried out in the inlet (as clearly shown in Fig 1-3, the injection apparatus 30 is located in the inlet).
In Regard to Claim 12
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the plurality of nozzles (31) are arranged with spacing from each other in an axial direction and form a cascading injection (at least a portion of each nozzles is axially spaced from a portion of another nozzle, together the nozzle form a cascading injection as clearly shown in Fig 3).
In Regard to Claim 13
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the plurality of nozzles (31) are arranged to be offset from each other(as shown in Fig 3 the plurality of nozzle are offset from one another along the wall of 12 within the space K).
In Regard to Claim 14
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the quantity of injected liquid can be controlled by switching the plurality of nozzles (31) on and off (there are a plurality of individual nozzles 31 each having a plurality of control devices 33 which generate spray droplets, the plurality nozzles and the plurality of control devices are capable of being switched on and off).
In Regard to Claim 17
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the injection apparatus (30) for injection is configured in such a manner that an admixture of water and alcohol can be injected(the injection apparatus is structurally capable of injecting water and alcohol both separately and as an admixture; P[0047]).
In Regard to Claim 19
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), in the form of a radial compressor(Fig 1-3 the compressor is a radial compressor; P[0046]).
In Regard to Claim 20
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 19(see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the radial compressor is configured in one stage(Fig 1-3; P[0046]).
In Regard to Claim 21
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 19(see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the radial compressor is configured with multiple stages(P[0046]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view Mee and in further view of Belokon et al. (US 7252474), hereinafter: “Belokon”.
In Regard to Claim 6
Hasegawa teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the compressor has a helical stage(housings 10, 12, 14, 22 defines a helical stage) defined by a helical hollow space(A3, Fig 1) within a helical housing portion(22) and the injection of the liquid is carried out in the helical stage(Fig 1), wherein the helical hollow space is separate from the rotor and the impeller by a radial diffuser(20) arranged around a circumference of the impeller(Fig 1), the radial diffusor opening in the helical hollow space(Fig 1), wherein fluid discharged from the impeller flow into the radial diffusor(Fig 1) which guides the fluid discharged from the impeller into the helical hollow space of the helical housing portion(P[0018]-P[0019])
Hasegawa fails to teach:
wherein the radial diffusor comprises a plurality of diffusor blades
Belokon teaches:
A similar liquid injection apparatus(36) used on a compressor(10) that also has helical stage(Fig 1) defined by a helical hollow space(discharge flowpath within 18) within a helical housing portion(18) and the injection of the liquid is carried out in the helical stage(Fig 1), wherein the helical hollow space is separate from the rotor and the impeller by a radial diffuser(see annotated fig below) arranged around a circumference of the impeller(30, Fig 1), the radial diffusor opening in the helical hollow space(Fig 1), wherein the radial diffusor comprises a plurality of diffusor blades(see annotated fig below) wherein fluid discharged from the impeller flow into the radial diffusor(indicated by flow arrows in Fig 1) which guides the fluid discharged from the impeller into the helical hollow space of the helical housing portion(Fig 1).
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches a known method used to inject a radial compressor with liquid. Hasegawa in view of Mee further teaches the method may be applied to any type of compressors(P[0045], P[0046]). Hasegawa in view of Mee does not explicitly teach injecting liquid into a helical stage of a compressor wherein the radial diffusor comprises a plurality of diffusor blades. Belokon teaches a known method of injecting liquid into a helical stage of a compressor wherein the radial diffusor comprises a plurality of diffusor blades. All of the component parts are known in Hasegawa in view of Mee and Belokon. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a helical compressor stage with a bladed radial diffusor having liquid injection as taught by Belokon and apply it to the device of Hasegawa in view of Mee as a second compression stage to achieve the predictable results of adding a second compression stage to further increase pressure. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A
PNG
media_image1.png
505
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Mee and in further view of Bedrine et al. (FR 3088679), hereinafter: “Bedrine”. The English translation provided to be referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 18
Hasegawa in view of Mee teaches:
The compressor as claimed in Claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Hasegawa in view of Mee fails to teach:
wherein the injection apparatus for injection is configured in such a manner that an admixture has water and ethanol and/or water and methanol
Bedrine teaches:
A compressor(8) having an injection apparatus(13) for injecting an admixture of water and ethanol and/or water and methanol(Description of Invention, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hasegawa in view of Mee to incorporate the teachings of Bedrine to inject an admixture of water and ethanol or water and methanol in lieu of water to further cool the air upstream of the compressor which increases density of the air to be compressed and reduces power required for compression(Invention Background, paragraph 4).
Further, as Bedrine teaches that the use of a “an admixture of water and ethanol and/or water and methanol” is a known liquid suitable for injection upstream of compressors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected a “an admixture of water and ethanol and/or water and methanol” because it is merely the selection of an art known material suitable for injection into the inflow air stream of a compressor.
In further support of this position, the selection of a known material to make an
abradable coating prior to the invention was held to be obvious see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Court D. Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745