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: control means in claims 1-6 and 13-14 and common control installation in claim 6.
Control means is disclosed to be a controllable valve or a controllable pump (¶0021 of the PG Publication of the current application), which for the Species shown in Figure 3 is valves (V11, V12, V13, and V16) and a controllable pump (12). Common control installation is discussed in ¶0047-¶0050, ¶0068 as connected to the different sensors and valves with a corresponding control unit with a corresponding control program such that a common control is developed for the valves and pumps of the control means.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I shown in Figure 3 in the reply filed on March 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 13, and 14 read on the elected species. Claims 8-12 were withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Species.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a compressed gas cooler” and then later recites “one of the compressed gas cooler”, which is confusing since the claim did not previously recite that there was more than one compressed gas cooler. The Examiner recommends changing “a compressed gas cooler” to “at least one compressed gas cooler”, and “one of the compressed gas cooler” to “one of the at least one compressed gas cooler”.
Claims 1 and 13 recites “a cooling installation, the cooling installation comprises”, where a colon (: ) is recommended to be placed after “comprises”, as well as, indenting the elements that are part of the cooling installation that follow.
Claim 13 is directed to “a method for operating a compressor installation”, however, there appears to be formatted more as an apparatus claim. The Examiner recommends changing how the elements are recited, for example “- compressing a gas by a compressor to generate compressed gas, - cooling oil heated by the compressor using an oil cooler, - cooling the completely or partially compressed gas with a compressed gas cooler, - cooling a housing or part of the housing of the compressor with a housing cooler, - flowing a liquid coolant to cool each of the oil cooler, the compressed gas cooler, and the housing cooler with an individual coolant flow ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSURU (U.S. Patent 5,613,843) in view of MATSUZAKA (U.S. Patent Publication US 2022/0163027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, TSURU discloses: a compressor installation (see Figure 1 and Abstract), comprising
- a compressor (1, 2) for compressing a gas for generating a compressed gas (see Figure 3, Column 8, lines 24-67), and
- a cooling installation (see Figure 3 that shows a cooling installation that receives coolant (aka water) from the water supply main pipe (29)), the cooling installation comprises
- an oil cooler (7) for cooling oil heated by the compressor (see Figure 3, Column 8, line 63 – Column 9, line 14),
- a compressed gas cooler (5, 6) for cooling the gas which is completely or partially compressed to the compressed gas (see Figure 3, Column 8, line 63-67, where gas cooler (5) cools the partially compressed gas, and gas cooler (6) cools the completely compressed gas), and
- a housing cooler (1a, 2a, 8) for cooling a housing or part of the housing of the compressor (see Figure 3, Column 9, lines 1-14), wherein
- the oil cooler, the compressed gas cooler, and the housing cooler are
- in each case prepared to achieve cooling by a coolant flow from a liquid coolant (see Figure 3, Column 8, line 24 – Column 9, line 14).
TSURU discloses that the housing cooler (1a, 2a, 8) is controlled by a coolant pump (10), while the oil cooler, one of the compressed gas coolers receive the coolant via the main pipe water supply, where there is no specific controls discussed for these coolers, and therefore, TSURU fails to specifically disclose the coolant flow of the oil cooler and the coolant flow of one of the compressed gas cooler is an individual, actuatable control means so as to individually control each of the coolant flows in such a way that a cooling output is in each case individually controllable for the oil cooler and the compressed gas cooler.
Regarding claim 1, MATSUZAKA teaches: a compressor installation (see Abstract), comprising
- a compressor (101, 102) for compressing a gas for generating a compressed gas (see Abstract, Figures 5-8), and
- a cooling installation, the cooling installation comprises
- an oil cooler (203) for cooling oil heated by the compressor (¶0021),
- a compressed gas cooler (201, 202) for cooling the gas which is completely or partially compressed to the compressed gas (see Figures 5-8), and
- the oil cooler (203) and the compressed gas cooler are
- in each case prepared to achieve cooling by a coolant flow from a liquid coolant (see Figures 5-8), and wherein in each case for the coolant flow of the oil cooler and the coolant flow of one of the compressed gas cooler is
an individual, actuatable control means so as to individually control each of the coolant flows in such a way that a cooling output is in each case individually controllable for the oil cooler and the compressed gas cooler (see Figures 3 and 5-8, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the coolant flow of the oil cooler and the coolant flow of one of the compressed gas cooler is an individual, actuatable control means so as to individually control each of the coolant flows in such a way that a cooling output is in each case individually controllable for the oil cooler and the compressed gas cooler in the compressor installation of TSURU, in order to provide the desired cooling of the oil and compressed air. Furthermore, it would require only routine skill in the art to control the coolant to the different coolers in a compressor installation since each of the different components (oil cooler, the compressed gas cooler, and the housing cooler) each have their own specific requirements and needs, where controlling coolant to each of the coolers allows for the required cooling when needed, thereby not overcooling or undercooling the oil, housing, or compressed gas.
Regarding claim 2, TSURU further discloses: the oil cooler,
the compressed gas cooler, and
the housing cooler,
are connected to a primary cooling circuit in a parallel connection (see Figure 3 that shows all are connected to the water supply main pipe (29)).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, TSURU further discloses: the compressor includes a plurality of compression stages (1, 2), and
the compressed gas cooler includes an intercooler (5) and an aftercooler (6), and wherein
the intercooler cools gas which is partially compressed to the compressed gas between a first and second compression stage (see Figure 3), and
the aftercooler cools the compressed gas at the outlet of the compressor after having passed through the plurality of compression stages (See Figure 3), and/or
the intercooler and/or the aftercooler each include individual, actuatable control means (the use of “and/or” is considered to be met if only one of the limitations are met due to the “or”).
Regarding claim 4, the modified compressor installation of TSURU/ MATSUZAKA discloses: the control means each have a controllable valve and/or a controllable pump (see Figure 3 of TSURU that discloses a coolant pump (10) for the housing cooler, and Figures 5-8 of MATSUZAKA that discloses using controllable valves (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308), as well as, controllable pumps (103, 104) for the oil cooler and the compressed gas coolers).
Regarding claim 5, TSURU further discloses: the housing cooler
- includes at least one jacket cooler (1a, 2a) (see Figure 1, Column 9, lines 1-5), the at least one jacket cooler having
- a plurality of jacket sub-coolers connected in series (1a, 2a) (see Figures 1 and 3), each cooling one compressor stage and are prepared to use the same cooling flow for cooling, and to control the cooling flow by the same control means (see Figures 1 and 3, Column 9, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 6, the modified compressor installation of TSURU/MATSUZAKA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose a common control installation for controlling the coolant flow in a coordinated manner, and wherein the common control installation is prepared for controlling the control means and connected to the control means.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a common control installation for controlling the coolant flow in a coordinated manner, and wherein the common control installation is prepared for controlling the control means and connected to the control means in the modified compressor installation of TSURU/MATSUZAKA, in order to coordinate the cooling of the oil cooler, the housing cooler, and the compressed gas cooler. TSURU/MATSUZAKA discloses having an oil cooler, a housing cooler, and compressed gas coolers, where each of these coolers are intended to cool different components or fluids, where the oil cooler cools the oil that provides both cooling and lubrication to the components of the compressor, the housing cooler cools the housing of the compressor allowing it to operate and reduces thermal stresses on the compressor, and the compressed gas coolers cool the gas that leaves the compressor stages, thereby providing the desired temperature of the compressed gas output.
Regarding claim 7, TSURU further discloses: the compressor is a dry-running compressor, and/or
a screw compressor (55) (see Figure 16) which is designed to compress the gas by a movement of a plurality of mutually engaging screws (101, 102) (see Column 1, lines 9-17, Column 10, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 13, the method for operating a compressor installation as claimed would be inherent in the normal operation of the compressor installation discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
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