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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the published application on 05/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein said dryer device is arranged adjacent to said motor, in that said air-cooled heat exchanger has a secondary circuit which connects via a first cooling channel to a lateral cooling channel, wherein the transversal section of said transversal cooling channel has an elliptical or round shape, wherein it is a multi-stage compressor installation comprising at least two compressor elements, wherein one of said lateral cooling channels extends at least partly around another lateral cooling channel, wherein a first lateral cooling channel is in communication with a first partial channel of the first cooling channel, while a second lateral cooling channel is in communication with a second partial channel of the first cooling channel, wherein said air-cooled heat exchanger is configured to cool a cooling medium originating from a cooling jacket of said compressor element or of said motor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 22, 25-26, 28, 31 and 34 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 22 recites the limitation "the transversal section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claims 25 and 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “at least partly” in claims 26 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least partly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 34 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is. No person of the ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that follow “and/or” will be considered in the alternative.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 20, 22-23, 25, 28-30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata et al (US 20200300246 A1, hereinafter Sadakata) in view of Nakagawa (JP 2002227788 A, hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 20, Sadakata teaches an air-cooled compressor installation (package-type compressor, paragraph 0035) provided with a housing (casing 1) in which a compressor element (compressor body 13), driven by a motor (motor 14) is arranged (figure 8), and in which also: an integrated dryer device (dryer 44) with a dryer housing (figure 13) is provided with an internal space (figure 13); at least one air-cooled heat exchanger (air cooling type heat exchanger 32) is provided, wherein said dryer device (dryer 44) is arranged adjacent to said motor (as shown on figure 2).
Sadakata teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach in that said air-cooled heat exchanger has a secondary circuit which connects via a first cooling channel to a lateral cooling channel; and in that said space is connected via a transversal cooling channel to an outlet for a first cooling air flow, which transversal cooling channel extends through the lateral cooling channel.
However, Nakagawa teaches in that said air-cooled heat exchanger (heat exchanger 13) has a secondary circuit (as illustrated below on figure 1) which connects via a first cooling channel (as illustrated below on figure 1) to a lateral cooling channel (as illustrated below on figure 1); and in that said space is connected via a transversal cooling channel (as shown below on figure 1) to an outlet for a first cooling air flow (the compressed air introduced into the air dryer 12 is pre-cooled by the economizer 26 and is cooled by the evaporator 25, paragraph 0027), which transversal cooling channel extends through the lateral cooling channel (as illustrated below on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the teachings of Sadakata to include in that said air-cooled heat exchanger has a secondary circuit which connects via a first cooling channel to a lateral cooling channel; and in that said space is connected via a transversal cooling channel to an outlet for a first cooling air flow, which transversal cooling channel extends through the lateral cooling channel in view of the teachings of Nakagawa in order to yield the predictable result of performing main cooling.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the transversal section of said transversal cooling channel (as illustrated above on figure 1 of Nakagawa) has an elliptical or round shape (shape of region above heat exchanger 13, figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach wherein the transversal cooling channel (as illustrated above on figure 1 of Nakagawa) extends substantially centrally through the lateral cooling channel (extends fully through the lateral cooling channel, as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa), such that the space for the throughflow of the second cooling air flow (as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa) on both sides of the transversal cooling channel has the same size or substantially the same size (as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach wherein said first cooling channel (as illustrated above on figure 1 of Nakagawa) extends perpendicular or perpendicular (as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa) to the lateral cooling channel (as illustrated above on figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach wherein two or more parallel or parallel lateral cooling channels (as illustrated above on figure 1 of Nakagawa and adjacent to valve 6, as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa) are provided that are separated from each other by means of a partition wall (appears to be a partition wall below heat exchanger 13, as shown on figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings teach wherein said lateral cooling channels extend adjacent to each other (as show on figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 30, the combined teachings teach wherein said lateral cooling channels extend one above the other (as show on figure 1 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 37, the combined teachings teach wherein said second cooling channel (duct 33 of Sadakata) has a downstream increasing flow section over at least part of its length (increasing downstream in duct 33, as shown on figure 13 of Sadakata).
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of Vertriest et al (US 10576411 B2, hereinafter Vertriest).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said dryer device comprises a desiccant dryer with a regeneration cooler which is configured such that the first cooling air flow forms the cooling medium for regeneration gas that is passed through the regeneration cooler.
However, Vertriest teaches wherein said dryer device (drying device 6) comprises a desiccant dryer (drum 13 contains a regenerable drying agent or so-called desiccant material, col 3 lines 41-43) with a regeneration cooler (regeneration zone 14) which is configured such that the first cooling air flow forms the cooling medium for regeneration gas that is passed through the regeneration cooler (a cooling outlet 20 connected through a second regeneration line 21 to said second inlet 15 of the regeneration zone 14, col 3 lines 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein said dryer device comprises a desiccant dryer with a regeneration cooler which is configured such that the first cooling air flow forms the cooling medium for regeneration gas that is passed through the regeneration cooler in view of the teachings of Vertriest in order to yield the predictable result of where this gas serves as regeneration gas that will extract moisture from the drying agent that is in the regeneration zone.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach wherein it is a multi-stage compressor installation (figure 1 of Vertriest) comprising at least two compressor elements (compressor elements 2a/2b of Vertriest) and that it further comprises two air-cooled heat exchangers (heat exchangers 3 and 12 of Vertriest), in particular a first air-cooled heat exchanger forming an intercooler (intercooler 3 of Vertriest) and a second air-cooled heat exchanger forming an aftercooler (aftercooler 12 of Vertriest), and that the respective secondary circuits of these heat exchangers (heat exchanger 32 and a heat exchanger removing drain from the compressed air, paragraph 0052 of Sadakata) form a connection (figure 13 of Sadakata) between said first cooling channel (duct 35 of Sadakata) and a second cooling channel (duct 33 of Sadakata), which first and second cooling channel extend on both sides of a transversal wall arranged in the housing (as shown on figure 13 of Sadakata).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of Hirata et al (JP 2020028860 A, hereinafter Hiarata).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said lateral cooling channel extends at least partly between, on the one hand, an upper wall of the dryer housing, and, on the other hand, the roof of the housing.
However, Hirata teaches wherein said lateral cooling channel (within duct 40, figure 1) extends at least partly between, on the one hand, an upper wall of the dryer housing (upper wall of dryer 16, figure 1), and, on the other hand, the roof of the housing (roof of housing from generator 1, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein said lateral cooling channel extends at least partly between, on the one hand, an upper wall of the dryer housing, and, on the other hand, the roof of the housing in view of the teachings of Hirata in order to yield the predictable result of providing a cooling channel in the engine chamber.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach wherein the internal space (dryer chamber 344, figure 1 of Hirata) is connected via a plurality of transversal channels (via air outlet 36, figure 1 of Hirata) to a discharge in the roof of the housing (figure 1 of Hirata) and in that each of said transversal channels extends through said lateral channel (interpreted to extend through duct 40 and exiting through air outlet 36, figure 1 of Hirata).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 28 above, and in further view of Akashi et al (JP H09126175 A, hereinafter Akashi).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein one of said lateral cooling channels extends at least partly around another lateral cooling channel.
However, Akashi teaches wherein one of said lateral cooling channels (channel entering through filter 3, as shown on figure 1) extends at least partly around another lateral cooling channel (extending around channel where air flows through dryer 7, as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein one of said lateral cooling channels extends at least partly around another lateral cooling channel in view of the teachings of Akashi in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing a gas suction efficiency for a compressor main body.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 28 above, and in further view of Tepper et al (KR 20190112061 A, hereinafter Tepper).
Regarding claim 32, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein a first lateral cooling channel is in communication with a first partial channel of the first cooling channel, while a second lateral cooling channel is in communication with a second partial channel of the first cooling channel.
However, Tepper teaches wherein a first lateral cooling channel (left d1/d2 channel, figure 1) is in communication with a first partial channel (left cooling airflow 35, figure 1) of the first cooling channel (channel 25, figure 1), while a second lateral cooling channel (right d1/d2 channel, figure 1) is in communication with a second partial channel (right cooling airflow 35, figure 1) of the first cooling channel (channel 25, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein a first lateral cooling channel is in communication with a first partial channel of the first cooling channel, while a second lateral cooling channel is in communication with a second partial channel of the first cooling channel in view of the teachings of Tepper in order to yield the predictable result of generating cooling airflow in cooling channel.
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings teach wherein said first partial channel (left cooling airflow 35, figure 1 of Tepper) is connected to a first air-cooled heat exchanger (corresponding to air cooling type heat exchanger 32 of Sadakata, as modified), while a second partial channel (right cooling airflow 35, figure 1 of Tepper) is connected to a second air-cooled heat exchanger (heat exchanger 60, figure 6 of Tepper).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of Taniyama et al (US 11287145 B2, hereinafter Taniyama).
Regarding claim 34, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said air-cooled heat exchanger is configured to cool a cooling medium originating from a cooling jacket of said compressor element or of said motor.
However, Taniyama teaches wherein said air-cooled heat exchanger (heat exchanger, col 4 lines 37-40) is configured to cool a cooling medium (cooled oil is circulated and supplied to the compressor body 1 via an unshown return path, col 4 lines 42-43) originating from a cooling jacket of said compressor element (col 4 lines 35-43) or of said motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein said air-cooled heat exchanger is configured to cool a cooling medium originating from a cooling jacket of said compressor element or of said motor in view of the teachings of Taniyama in order to yield the predictable result of providing cooling to the compressor.
Further, it is understood, claim 34 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Further, it is understood, claim 34 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa and Vertriest, as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Sakai et al (US 20170051743 A1, hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein in a space between, on the one hand, a closing wall that keeps the second cooling channel separate from the space inside the housing in which the motor and the compressor element are arranged, and on the other hand, the wall of the housing, a silencer is provided which is arranged in the flow path of the compression medium.
However, Sakai teaches wherein in a space (figure 1) between, on the one hand, a closing wall (of duct 35, figure 1) that keeps the second cooling channel (within duct 35, figure 1) separate from the space inside the housing (as shown on figure 1) in which the motor (motor 2) and the compressor element (compressor main body 1) are arranged, and on the other hand, the wall of the housing (opposite side wall of duct 35, figure 1), a silencer (released air silencer 28) is provided which is arranged in the flow path of the compression medium (along air release valve 27, paragraph 0034 and figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein in a space between, on the one hand, a closing wall that keeps the second cooling channel separate from the space inside the housing in which the motor and the compressor element are arranged, and on the other hand, the wall of the housing, a silencer is provided which is arranged in the flow path of the compression medium in view of the teachings of Sakai in order to yield the predictable result of releasing air via a released air silencer.
Regarding claim 36, the combined teachings teach wherein said compressor element concerns an oil-free toothed com-pressor element (a compressor main body 1 having a pair of male and female screw rotors (rotors) that can rotate in a non-contact, oil-free state by means of a timing gear, paragraph 0019 of Sakai).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakata as modified by Nakagawa, as applied to claim 20 above, and in further view of Schneider et al (US 20230249125 A1, hereinafter Schneider).
Regarding claim 38, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said dryer device comprises a cooling dryer with a cooling circuit with an air-cooled condenser, configured to be cooled by means of the first cooling air flow.
However, Schneider teaches wherein said dryer device (refrigeration dryer 12) comprises a cooling dryer (refrigeration dryer 12) with a cooling circuit (refrigerant circuit 24) with an air-cooled condenser (condenser 26), configured to be cooled by means of the first cooling air flow (cooling air flow that is conducted through the refrigeration dryer 12, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation in the combined teachings to include wherein said dryer device comprises a cooling dryer with a cooling circuit with an air-cooled condenser, configured to be cooled by means of the first cooling air flow in view of the teachings of Schneider in order to yield the predictable result of providing cooling airflow through the refrigeration dryer.
Further, it is understood, claim 34 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights