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 .
The reply dated March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 22-41 are currently pending in the application with claims 26-29, 32, 35-36 and 39-41 currently withdrawn as pertaining to non-elected species.
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.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,215,182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the structure including a multi-stage compressor including an oil feed rod having an open interior can be found in claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent 11,215,182.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,547. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the structure including a multi-stage compressor including an oil feed rod having an open interior can be found in claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 11,781,547.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,494. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the structure including a multi-stage compressor including an oil feed rod having an open interior can be found in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,146,494.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 22-25, 30-31, 33-34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0119601 in view of Johansson et al., GB 2,094,891.
As per claims 22 and 37, Lin et al. disclose a multi-stage compressor (100) and a method having a first stage rotary compressor (220) located upstream from a second stage rotary compressor (280), the multi-stage compressor comprising:
a transfer volume (250) located intermediate to the first stage rotary compressor (220) and the second stage rotary compressor (280), wherein the transfer volume (250) is used to receive outflow from the first stage rotary compressor and convey the outflow to the second stage rotary compressor (fig. 1) (para [0021]); and
Lin et al. do not disclose an oil feed rod that extends into the transfer volume, the oil feed rod having an open interior for the receipt of oil as well as a plurality of openings formed in an exterior periphery of the oil feed rod through which oil from the open interior of the oil feed rod can pass into the transfer volume, at least one opening of the plurality of openings configured to spray oil onto the second stage rotary compressor from a direction substantially orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the second stage rotary compressor. However, Johansson et al. in their Oil-injected multi-stage meshing screw compressor invention teach a screw compressor that supplies a great amount of cooling oil in an intermediate cooling step of a two stage screw compressor (page 1, col. 1). Nozzle orifices (41, 42) are located on the periphery of hollow nozzle (19) (figs. 1, 3). The nozzle located in a passageway (15) located between the first stage (10) and second stage (11) compressors (fig. 1). Nozzle orifices (41, 42) are arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle (19) (page 2, lines 27-50).
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 the invention of Lin with an oil feed rod that extends into the transfer volume, as taught by Johansson et al., for the purpose of improving homogeneity of the mixture by placing the nozzle directly in the working fluid path.
As per claim 23, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose the oil feed rod (19) extends from a wall (near 304, Lin) that defines the transfer volume and terminates at an end (near 201, Lin), the exterior periphery of the oil feed rod (19) defined between the wall and the end.
As per claim 24, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose the oil feed rod (19) includes a circular cross-sectional shape (figs. 4, 5), and wherein each of the plurality of openings (41, 42) are symmetric (figs. 1, 3-5).
As per claim 25, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose the oil feed rod (19) is in the form of a hollow tube (figs. 3-5), and wherein the plurality of openings (41, 42) are sized to produce a spray of oil droplets (page 1, lines 88-95).
As per claims 30 and 37, Lin et al. disclose an apparatus (100) [two-stage oil-injected screw air compressor] and method comprising:
a first pair of compressor rotors (220);
a second pair of compressor rotors (280);
a passage (250) that connects an outlet of the first pair of compressor rotors (220) to an inlet of the second pair of compressor rotors (280) (fig. 1).
Lin et al. do not disclose an oil delivery rod that extends into the passage, the oil delivery rod including a plurality of openings positioned between a first exposed end and a second exposed end of the oil delivery rod, at least one opening of the plurality of openings configured to spray oil onto at least one compressor rotor of the second pair of compressor rotors from a direction substantially orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the at least one compressor rotor. However, Johansson et al. in their Oil-injected multi-stage meshing screw compressor invention teach a screw compressor that supplies a great amount of cooling oil in an intermediate cooling step of a two stage screw compressor (page 1, col. 1). Nozzle orifices (41, 42) are located on the periphery of hollow nozzle (19) (figs. 1, 3). The nozzle located in a passageway (15) located between the first stage (10) and second stage (11) compressors (fig. 1). Nozzle orifices (41, 42) are arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle (19) (page 2, lines 27-50) at a position to deliver cooling oil onto the second stage compressor (11) (fig. 1).
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 the invention of Lin with an oil feed rod that extends into the passage, as taught by Johansson et al., for the purpose of improving homogeneity of the mixture by placing the nozzle directly in the working fluid path.
As per claim 31, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose the plurality of openings (41, 42) extend between an inner surface of the oil delivery rod (19) and an external oil delivery surface of the oil delivery rod (figs. 3-5).
As per claims 33 and 38, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose the plurality of openings (41, 42) are sized to atomize oil that is conveyed through the openings (page 1, lines 88-95).
As per claim 34, Lin et al. and Johansson et al. as set forth above, Lin et al. as modified, disclose a spray pattern formed by the plurality of openings (41, 42) extends around the entirety of a periphery of the oil delivery rod (19) (figs. 3-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argues on pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks that Johansson specifically teaches away and avoids spraying oil onto the second stage rotors. Therefore, Lin, Johansson, or any other cited reference fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "at least one opening of the plurality of openings configured to spray oil onto the second stage rotary compressor from a direction substantially orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the second stage rotary compressor," as previously recited in claim 22. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears fig. 1 shows orifices in the spray nozzle are pointed upwards toward the first stage compressor as stated by applicants. However, GB ‘891 also describes a different nozzle 19 shown in figs. 3-5 designed in a different way (p. 2, col. 1, lines 27-50). Examiner interprets fig. 3 is an overhead section view looking down towards the second stage injector. Section BB is shown in fig. 5 with a least a row of nozzles configured to spray oil onto the second stage rotary compressor from a direction substantially orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the second stage rotary compressor as claimed in claim 22. While lines 27-29 state “in certain cases dynamic losses can be caused by the fact, that the cooling oil penetrates inward to the rotating rotors….”, GB ‘891 is not specific as to which certain cases those may be. Further, GB ‘891 does disclose nozzle orifices shown in figs. 3 and 5 that do meet the limitations of applicants’ claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571 272-2097. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights