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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on February 20th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 26th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 6-7, & 15-16 have been amended. Claims 21-22 have been newly-added. Claim 5 has been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-4 & 6-22 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Applicant has submitted corrected drawing sheets that obviate these issues, rendering the objection moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 & 6-22 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. In particular, Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of dependent Claim 5 without also including the limitations of intervening dependent Claim 3. This presents a new claim scope for Claim 1 that remains rejectable by prior art (see updated rejections below). Similarly, newly added Claims 21 & 22 also present new claim scope(s). Although Claims 21 & 22 combine the limitations of Claims 13 & 14, they now merely recite the limitations of Claims 18 & 19 as optional alternatives in the invention. Thus, like Claim 1, Claims 21 & 22 present new claim scope(s) that remains rejectable by prior art (see below).
Applicant should note that Claims 18-19 remain objected to as allowable (see below), as the phrasing of these claims positively requires their respective seal displacement steps to occur in the invention. Applicant should consider revising the language of Claims 21 & 22 to positively require the newly incorporated limitations (i.e. not allow them to be merely optional) in the invention in order to achieve similar allowability indication(s).
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) 1-2, 6, 13-17, & 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 3321084 to Hunger (attached to previous office action).
PNG
media_image1.png
912
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 13, and with particular reference to Figure 1 shown immediately above, Hunger discloses:
1. A compressor (Fig. 1; para. 4) comprising a compressor piston (3) compressing a working medium (“hydraulic cylinder”; para. 4), a seal (slide ring 7 of set 41) for sealing the compressor piston, a magazine (1) containing a plurality of replacement seals (additional slide rings 7 of the additional sets 42; “redundancy can be increased by providing several additional seal sets”; para. 38), a replacement device (6, 9-14) for replacing the seal with one of the replacement seals of the magazine (paras. 29-37), wherein the replacement device comprises a slider (6) for displacing the seal from an operating position aligned with the compressor piston into a change position aligned with the replacement seals (Condition A) and/or for displacing one of the replacement seals from an exchange position aligned with the replacement seals into the operating position aligned with the compressor piston (Condition B) (in this instance, Condition B is met by Hunger, as described by paras. 36-38), wherein centre axes of the replacement seals are arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of the magazine (apparent in Fig. 1).
13. A method of compressing a working medium, comprising the steps of: moving a compressor piston (3) compressing the working medium (“hydraulic cylinder”; para. 4), wherein the compressor piston is sealed with a seal (slide ring 7 of set 41), providing a magazine (1) with a plurality of replacement seals (additional slide rings 7 of “several additional sealing sets” 42; para. 38), replacing the seal with one of the replacement seals of the magazine (paras. 27-38), wherein centre axes of the replacement seals are arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of the magazine (apparent in Fig. 1).
21. A method of compressing a working medium, comprising the steps of: moving a compressor piston (3) compressing the working medium (“hydraulic cylinder”; para. 4), wherein the compressor piston is sealed with a seal (slide ring 7 of set 41), providing a magazine (1) with a plurality of replacement seals (additional slide rings 7 of “several additional sealing sets” 42; para. 38), replacing the seal with one of the replacement seals of the magazine (paras. 27-38), wherein replacing the seal with a replacement seal of the plurality of replacement seals of the magazine comprises at least one of the following steps: displacing the compressor piston into a retracted position beyond an operational dead centre (Option A), and/or displacing the seal from an operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston into a change position arranged in alignment with the plurality of replacement seals (Option B), and/or displacing the seal arranged in the change position into a storage position in an additional magazine by displacing the seal in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine (Option C), and/or displacing the replacement seal into an exchange position corresponding to the change position of the seal (Option D), and/or displacing the replacement seal arranged in the exchange position into the operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston (Option E), and/or pushing the compressor piston into the replacement seal arranged in the operating position (Option F) (in this case, at least Options B, E, & F are clearly met; see paras. 27-38 and Fig. 1, which describe replacing a first/old seal 7 with a new/additional seal 7 via radial hydraulic relaxing/compression by respective sliders 6 and then resuming piston operation), and wherein centre axes of the replacement seals are arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of the magazine (apparent in Fig. 1).
22. A method of compressing a working medium, comprising the steps of: moving a compressor piston (3) compressing the working medium (“hydraulic cylinder”; para. 4), wherein the compressor piston is sealed with a seal (slide ring 7 of set 41), providing a magazine (1) with a plurality of replacement seals (additional slide rings 7 of “several additional sealing sets” 42; para. 38), replacing the seal with one of the replacement seals of the magazine (paras. 27-38), wherein replacing the seal with a replacement seal of the plurality of replacement seals of the magazine comprises at least one of the following steps: displacing the compressor piston into a retracted position beyond an operational dead centre (Option A), and/or displacing the seal from an operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston into a change position arranged in alignment with the plurality of replacement seals (Option B), and/or displacing the seal arranged in the change position into a storage position in an additional magazine (Option C), and/or displacing the replacement seal into an exchange position corresponding to the change position of the seal by displacing the replacement seal in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine (Option D), and/or displacing the replacement seal arranged in the exchange position into the operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston (Option E), and/or pushing the compressor piston into the replacement seal arranged in the operating position (Option F) (in this case, at least Options B, E, & F are clearly met; see paras. 27-38 and Fig. 1, which describe replacing a first/old seal 7 with a new/additional seal 7 via radial hydraulic relaxing/compression by respective sliders 6 and then resuming piston operation), and wherein centre axes of the replacement seals are arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of the magazine (apparent in Fig. 1)
In regards to Claim 2, the replacement seals are each stacked substantially horizontally one above the other along the magazine (clearly depicted in the vertical orientation of Fig. 1; see also para. 38, which discloses “several additional sealing sets”).
In regards to Claim 6, the slider (6) comprises a mounting ring (“outer base body”; para. 27) for receiving the seal and/or a replacement seal of the replacement seals (apparent in Fig. 1 and para. 27).
In regards to Claim 14, replacing the seal with a replacement seal of the plurality of replacement seals of the magazine comprises at least one of the following steps: displacing the compressor piston into a retracted position beyond an operational dead centre (Option A), and/or displacing the seal from an operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston into an change position arranged in alignment with the plurality of replacement seals (Option B), and/or displacing the seal arranged in the change position into a storage position in an additional magazine (Option C), and/or displacing one of the replacement seals into an exchange position corresponding to the change position of the seal (Option D), and/or displacing the replacement seal arranged in the exchange position into the operating position arranged in alignment with the compressor piston (Option E), and/or pushing the compressor piston into the replacement seal arranged in the operating position (Option F) (in this case, at least Options B, E, & F are clearly met; see paras. 27-38 and Fig. 1, which describe replacing a first/old seal 7 with a new/additional seal 7 via radial hydraulic relaxing/compression by respective sliders 6 and then resuming piston operation).
In regards to Claim 15, the slider (6) displaces the seal (7) in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the compressor piston (apparent from Fig. 1; paras. 27-38 also describe relieving pressure on the first seal 7 in order to radially relax the seal away from the piston into a change position, and subsequently applying pressure on the replacement seal 7 in order to radially compress the replacement seal against the piston into an operating position).
In regards to Claim 16, the slider (6) displaces one of the replacement seals (7) in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the magazine (apparent from Fig. 1; paras. 27-38 also describe relieving pressure on the seal 7 in order to radially relax the seal away from the piston into a change position, and subsequently applying pressure on the replacement seal 7 in order to radially compress the replacement seal against the piston into an operating position).
In regards to Claim 17, displacing the seal from the operating position into the change position comprises displacing the seal in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the compressor piston (paras. 27-38 describe relieving pressure on the seal 41 in order to radially relax the seal away from the piston into a change position, and subsequently applying pressure on the replacement seal 42 in order to radially compress the replacement seal against the piston into an operating position).
In regards to Claim 20, displacing the replacement seal from the exchange position into the operating position comprises displacing the replacement seal in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the magazine (paras. 27-38 describe applying pressure on the replacement seal 7 in order to radially compress the replacement seal against the piston into the operating position).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger (applied above) in view of DE 102004030734 to Gesche (attached to previous office action).
In regards to Claim 12, Hunger discloses the compressor according to claim 1, but does not further disclose that the compressor piston (3) is displaceable into a retracted position beyond an operational dead centre for replacing the seal with one of the replacement seals of the magazine.
However, Gesche discloses another reciprocating hydraulic cylinder arrangement (Figs. 1-2) in which a compressor piston (2) is sealed by a magazine (5) containing a plurality of seals (6-8), wherein the compressor piston is displaceable into a retracted position (Fig. 2) beyond an operational dead centre for replacing the seal with a replacement seal (para. 10; “the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder can be retracted into an end position beyond that in normal operation, in such a way that the piston rod can be pulled out or moved out of the area of the sealing elements, thereby releasing the sealing elements arranged in the guide bush of the hydraulic cylinder and thus providing unhindered access to the sealing elements”). Gesche makes clear that such a retracted state of the piston creates the possibility that in the event of an accident or service, the wearing parts are easily accessible and can therefore be easily replaced without any further disassembly of the hydraulic cylinder (para. 11). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic cylinder with improved seal access, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Gesche in combination with those seen in Hunger in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunger’s hydraulic cylinder with the retracted position taught in Gesche in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more versatile hydraulic cylinder having the ability to gain unhindered access to all of the seals (7) and to replace the seals in the event of an accident or service (as taught in Gesche).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-11, & 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best available art fails to disclose the invention of Claim 3, wherein the replacement device comprises a feed drive for displacing the replacement seals in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine. Hunger (applied above) is considered to be the most relevant prior art document as it relates to Claim 3. However, Hunger is completely silent on the replacement device having a feed drive for displacing the replacement seals in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine in combination with the slider of Claim 1. Hunger adjusts the radial position of his seals 7 via radially-moving sliders 6 and associated hydraulic fluid pressure, and thus, there would have been no reasonable basis to have added a feed drive for displacing seals 7 in a direction of the longitudinal axis of Hunger’s magazine 1 without complex, extensive redesign of the entire assembly that could only be gleaned from impermissible hindsight reconstruction. EP 3,514,380 to Adler and JPS59-131068 to Matsushita are similarly relevant to the invention of Claims 1 & 3. While Adler discloses a compressor having a compressor piston/seal arrangement and a method for replacing the compressor piston seal, Adler lacks a teaching of a plurality of replacement seals arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of a magazine, as claimed. Instead, the replacement seals in Adler, while arranged within magazine, are not arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of a magazine, as claimed, but are radially/circumferentially spaced apart. Additionally, Adler is silent towards a slider, as claimed. Furthermore, while Matsushita discloses a seal installation mechanism B including a magazine 17 of seals 3 arranged substantially in alignment along a longitudinal axis of the magazine, Matsushita is not concerned with seal replacement in compressors at all, and thus, does not even disclose replacing a seal. Instead, Matsushita merely a mechanism that installs new seals. Additionally, Matsushita is designed for installing a new seal onto a rotating transmission shaft 2; not a compressor piston, as claimed. Thus, Matsushita is not relevant to compressor piston seals. For all of these reasons, Adler and Matsushita fail to remedy the deficiencies of Hunger.
As it relates to Claim 7, the best available art fails to disclose an additional magazine for receiving a replaced seal. Hunger (applied above) is considered to be the most relevant prior art document as it relates to Claim 7. However, Hunger is completely silent on the use of any additional magazine, nor would there have been any reasonable basis to have added an additional magazine for receiving Hunger’s replaced seal 7 without complex, extensive redesign of the entire assembly that could only be gleaned from impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Claims 8-11 are dependent upon Claim 7, and remain objected to via their dependencies. Adler and Matsushita fail to remedy the deficiencies of Hunger.
As it relates to Claims 18 & 19, the best available art fails to disclose wherein displacing the seal from the change position into the storage position comprises displacing the seal in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine. Similarly, the best available art fails to disclose wherein displacing the replacement seal into the exchange position comprises displacing the replacement seal in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the magazine. EP 3,514,380 to Adler and US Patent 6,152,454 to Marnot are considered to be the most relevant prior art document as it relates to Claims 18 & 19. However, Marnot is specifically designed for rotating shafts (not reciprocating pistons), and furthermore, Marnot requires a specialized ring/bearing (2, 3) for proper seal engagement to the rotary shaft and proper seal replacement capability; something that would not be feasible or possible in a reciprocating piston arrangement such as that in Hunger. See also the reasoning for Claim 3 above. Adler, Marnot, and Matsushita fail to remedy the deficiencies of Hunger.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed February 20th, 2026 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC