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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: dynamic coupled elements in claims 1, 8, 12, and 19, and “dynamic elements” in claim 20. There is no structure or clarification in the specification what the applicant considers the “dynamic coupled elements”, and dynamic coupled elements uses the function “dynamic coupled” with a nonce word “elements”, and therefore, is treated under 112(f). There is no structure or clarification in the specification what the applicant considers the “dynamic elements”, and dynamic elements uses the function “dynamic” with a nonce word “elements”, and therefore, is treated under 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner has withdrawn their restriction requirement based on the claims are very similar to the patented claims with a double patenting rejection is found below. The broadest claim 20 is rejected based on art and reads on any of the Species with a balancing line.
The Examiner has withdrawn the Restriction requirement and fully examined the claims for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 14/891954, filed May 20, 2014 and prior Application No. 16/572441, filed November 17, , 2015, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Applicant has listed Application No. 14/891954 and Application No. 16/572441 as being a Continuation, however, has added additional terminology and/or claimed features not in the original disclosures. Specifically applicant has added “dynamic coupled elements” and “dynamic elements” that are not disclosed in the original disclosures of these prior art applications. These amendments from the original disclosure is considered as new, and therefore, the application should be considered as a Continuation in Part application. Applicant can remove any changes made from the original disclosures to maintain the Continuation status, or amend the specification and Application Data sheet to make this application a Continuation in Part application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes limitations directed to “one or more chambers” (line 1), “multiple chambers including at least one pressure chamber”, “the chambers” (lines 6 and 12), “at least one of the chambers” (line 7), and “at least one chamber” (line 8), where the singularity and plurality as well as the terminology used is changed. The Examiner recommends changing “one or more chambers” to “multiple chambers” (and adding “the” before the multiple chambers in lines 3-4), “the chambers” to “the multiple chambers”, “the at least one of the chambers” to “at least one of the multiple chambers”, and “at least one chamber” to “the at least one pressure chamber”, in order to maintain the terminology throughout the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 recite “dynamic coupled elements” and claim 20 recites “dynamic elements”, which lacks written description since the specification does not clarify what the applicant means by “dynamic coupled elements” or “dynamic elements”. The specification does not disclose what “elements” perform the function of being “dynamic coupled” or being “dynamic”, and therefore, lacks adequate written description. Applicant’s arguments in the response to the Restriction requirement filed on February 6, 2026 on Page 11 is not persuasive with stating one having ordinary skill in the art would understand what this terminology is related to. Under 112(f) there has to be a clear connection between the claimed terminology and the specification, however, there is no clear connection. Even the applicant argues that one “would understand” and has not specifically pointing out where in the specification this terminology is used, and therefore, lacks written description. Applicant has stated that they can amend the specification to clarify this terminology, however, this would be considered as new matter. Amending the claims to include specific structure or elements that are in the original specification is the best way to resolve this issue and removing this terminology. Please also see the status discussion above, where adding this new terminology to the specification and claims makes this application as a Continuation in Part to the prior applications of 16/572441 and 14/891954.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 recite “dynamic coupled elements” and claim 20 recites “dynamic elements”, which is indefinite since the specification does not clearly link the claimed function to any structure, material, or acts that perform that function. The Examiner is construing for examination purposes that the dynamic coupled elements or dynamic elements are any elements that are either rotating or moving.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AMANO (U.S. Patent 8,435,020 B2).
Regarding claim 20, AMANO discloses: a system for managing pressure across one or more chambers in a machine handling a process fluid, comprising:
a machine (10) (screw compressor), configured to handle process fluid (see Figures 1-3, Column 4, lines 50-62), wherein the machine comprises multiple chambers (49, 35) (see Marked up Figure 1 of AMANO that shows multiple chambers labeled first pressure chamber and chamber second pressure chamber) including at least one pressure chamber configured to be pressurized by the process fluid (see Marked up Figure 1 that shows the at least one pressure chamber with screw rotor (25), where the pressure chamber is pressurized by the process fluid since the process fluid flows thru the at least one pressure chamber);
one or more seals (Column 5, lines 4-65, that discloses that the carbon ring seals (42, 43), configured to maintain a pressure differential between the chambers (“configured to maintain a pressure differential between the chambers” is a functional limitation, It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, AMANO is capable of performing the claimed function, since as disclosed in Column 5, lines 4-65 that there is leakage from the compressor chamber, where leakage is inherently due to the pressure differential between the chambers. The pressure differential is maintained between the chambers due to the seals restrict the flow, thereby maintaining the pressure differential between the chambers). ;
dynamic elements (25; 39, 40, 57) (Column 4, line 63 – Column 5, line 3) (dynamic elements are also shown in the Figure 1 as the bearings since the bearings are a rotating elements), configured within at least one of the chambers (see Figure 1, where the screw (25) comprises a male and female screw defining the dynamic elements);
a pressure balancing line (52), configured to connect at least one chamber to a point of lower pressure within the machine (see Figures 1-3, Column 5, lines 55-65, where the first chamber is connected via the pressure balancing line (52) to the suction (17), which is at a lower pressure than at the seal, since the seal (42, 43) are located at the discharge end (i.e. at the end near the outlet (18), which is at a higher pressure since this apparatus is a compressor which takes a low pressure process fluid at (17,20) and compresses it to a high pressure process fluid at (18, 21). As discussed above there is leakage around the seals to (48), and therefore, at (48) there is process fluid at a higher pressure (i.e. near discharge pressure that connects via (52) (pressure balancing line) to a lower pressure (i.e. the suction (17))); and
wherein the system is configured to direct at least a portion of the process fluid through the one or more seals (Column 5, lines 4-65, that discloses that the carbon ring seals (42, 43) “reduce as much as possible a process gas from leaking from the compressor chamber”, which is interpreted that there is still leakage and that since there is known leakage, this meets the limitation directed to the process fluid is directed via one or more chamber seals), by inducing a pressure differential across the seals via the pressure balancing line, to facilitate a cascading flow of fluid between the chambers (the claimed limitation directed to “by inducing a pressure differential across the seals via the pressure balancing line, to facilitate a cascading flow of fluid between the chambers” is a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, AMANO is capable of performing the claimed function, since the pressure balancing line is connected to the suction pressure, and the end of the chamber with the screw rotor (25) is at a discharge pressure thereby forming a pressure differential between the chambers, that forces a leakage between the chamber thru the seals due to this pressure differential. The leakage thru the seals between the chambers is considered to be the cascading flow of fluid between the chambers).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim set utilizes different terminology “pressure chamber” is a “first pressure chamber”, “another pressure chamber” is “a second pressure chamber”; “dynamic coupled elements” is “a rotating element”.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim set utilizes different terminology “pressure chamber” is a “first pressure chamber”, “another pressure chamber” is “a second pressure chamber”; “dynamic coupled elements” is “a rotating element”.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as discussed above in the independent claim there is different terminology used for the same elements.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim set utilizes different terminology “multiple pressure chambers” are the “first pressure chamber” and “second pressure chamber”; and “dynamic elements” is “a rotating element”. The preambles are different but the claimed “system for managing pressure across one or more chambers in a machine handling a process fluid” is disclosed in claim 1 to include managing pressure across one or more chambers, as well as, the machine in U.S. Patent No. 12,123,499 is disclosed to be a machine that handles process fluid.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746