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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 7, the word “the” should be inserted between “wherein” and “quarter wave tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 12 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 11 teaches that “λ is the blade passing frequency of an impeller” and claim 12 teaches that “λ is the blade passing frequency of an impeller” but both depend upon claim 10 which teaches that “λ is a wavelength of a sound to be attenuated”. Although related, frequency and wavelength are separate physical properties, inversely proportional to one another. Specifically, for a constant speed (v), wavelength (traditionally symbolized by the Greek letter λ) and frequency (traditionally symbolized by the letter f), are related by the formula:
λ
=
v
f
so that speed has units of distance/time (e.g., meters/second), wavelength has units of distance (e.g., meters), and frequency has units of one cycle per unit time (e.g., inverse seconds also known as hertz).
Each of claims 11 and 12 teaches that the value λ, already defined as a wavelength (that is, a distance) in claim 10, is a frequency so that it is not clear if this teaching requires that λ have both values (as some form of set) or that λ be a frequency, replacing the limitation of the variable as a frequency set forth in claim 10. Further, by inserting a frequency in the space of the variable λ rather than a wavelength (itself a distance) in the formula of claim 10, each of claims 11 and 12 produces a calculated result L which must also have units of frequency and thus cannot be a length of a tube as required in claim 10. For this reason, the scope of claims 11 and 12 regarding λ being a frequency and the scope imposed in further limiting claim 10 in applying this value to the formula of that claim cannot be positively ascertained and claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), each of claims 11 and 12 identifies the variable λ as a frequency but depends upon claim 10 which identifies this variable as a wavelength so that, if applied to further limit claim 10, the limitations of claims 11 and 12 would result in both a variable representing a property different from the property it represents within claim 10, and a formula which cannot define a length as taught in claim 10 because the product of a dimensionless constant and a frequency is another frequency rather than a length. For this reason, each of claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as failing to properly limit claim 10 upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
As discussed above with regard to the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d), each of these claims depends upon a claim which defines λ as a wavelength of a sound to be attenuated but teaches that λ is instead a frequency. For purposes of examination, claims 11 and 12 have been interpreted not as changing or applying new parameters or values to the variable λ, but as additionally defining a frequency as additional property for the sound to be attenuated.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure includes the same inconsistencies regarding the variable λ discussed above with regard to claims 11-12. Specifically, in ¶¶ 14 and 30-31, λ is identified as a wavelength but in ¶¶ 15-16 and 32 it is taught that λ is the blade passing frequency or a harmonic thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further, applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (emphasis added by examiner)
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract as filed is less than 50 words, having a length of 33 words. Further, the disclosure of the Abstract ends with “for example”, indicating that the abstract does not identify the structure that is the invention, but only an example which may be one exemplary embodiment of the invention.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
618
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2004/0146396 to Liu.
Liu teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a refrigerant compressor (the gas compressor sown in fig. 1), comprising: a diffuser (diffuser passage 14) including a quarter wave tube (one of the cells 34a, b, and c, identified in ¶ 14 as “quarter-wave resonators”).
Regarding the recitation of the compressor as “a refrigerant compressor”, MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble states (with emphasis added by examiner):
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Here, Liu teaches a gas compressor for producing a high-pressure compressed gas (e.g. in ¶ 6) and is thus found teach a compressor capable of the intended-use limitations of the preamble of claim 1 regarding the compressor being “a refrigerant compressor” (i.e. a compressor capable of compressing a refrigerant gas).
Liu teaches limitations from claim 2 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the refrigerant compressor as recited in claim 1, wherein the quarter wave tube (34a) is a first quarter wave tube configured to attenuate noise of a first frequency, and the diffuser (20) includes a second quarter wave tube (34b) configured to attenuate noise of a second frequency different than the first frequency (as taught in ¶¶ 14-15, variation in the small diameter cells 36 which provides inlets to the larger cells 34 may be provided to vary the frequency attenuated by each of the cells 34).
Liu teaches limitations from claim 3 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the refrigerant compressor as recited in claim 2, wherein the diffuser (20) includes a third quarter wave tube (34c) configured to attenuate noise of a third frequency different than the first and second frequencies (as taught in ¶¶ 14-15).
Liu teaches limitations from claim 4 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the refrigerant compressor as recited in claim 2, wherein the first and second quarter wave tubes (34a and 34b) are provided in a common wall (10c) of the diffuser (14, as shown in figs. 1 and 2.)
Liu teaches limitations from claim 5 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the refrigerant compressor as recited in claim 1, wherein the quarter wave tube (34a) is not a through-opening (as shown, the cell 34a connects to the diffuser passage 14 but itself presents a hollow cell rather than a through-passage).
Liu teaches limitations from claim 6 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the refrigerant compressor as recited in claim 5, wherein refrigerant enters and exits the quarter wave tube via the diffuser (particularly through the smaller cells 36 which connect the diffuser passage 14 to the larger cells 34).
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 1-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by US Publication No. 2005/0194207 to Nemit, Jr. et al.
The following additional ground of rejection of claims 1-6 does not indicate any deficiency of the rejections set forth above but is presented to show that, even if the phrase “refrigerant compressor” is taken as a positive recitation rather than a statement of intended use so that the invention is not anticipated, it remains unpatentable as being obvious.
Liu teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a refrigerant compressor (the gas compressor sown in fig. 1), comprising: a diffuser (diffuser passage 14) including a quarter wave tube (one of the cells 34a, b, and c, identified in ¶ 14 as “quarter-wave resonators”).
Although Liu teaches a gas compressor (¶ 6), they do not explicitly teach the compressor for use as “a refrigerant compressor”. Nemit teaches a compressor (20) making use of a “quarter wave resonator” for noise attenuation (¶ 19) the compressor (20) connected to “a HVAC&R system 10” for compressing and discharging “refrigerant gas” (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Liu to compress refrigerant as taught by Nemit in order to provide the benefits taught by Liu of noise attenuation over a wide frequency range as taught in Liu’s ¶¶ 14-15 to the context of a refrigeration system as taught by Nemit.
Regarding the limitations of claim 2, refer to the rejection of the claim set forth above.
Regarding the limitations of claim 3, refer to the rejection of the claim set forth above.
Regarding the limitations of claim 4, refer to the rejection of the claim set forth above.
Regarding the limitations of claim 5, refer to the rejection of the claim set forth above.
Regarding the limitations of claim 6, refer to the rejection of the claim set forth above.
Liu teaches limitations from claim 13 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a method, comprising: attenuating noise within a … compressor (the gas compressor sown in fig. 1) using a quarter wave tube of a diffuser (one of the cells 34a, b, and c, identified in ¶ 14 as “quarter-wave resonators”).
Although Liu teaches a gas compressor (¶ 6), they do not explicitly teach the compressor for use as “a refrigerant compressor”. Nemit teaches a compressor (20) making use of a “quarter wave resonator” for noise attenuation (¶ 19) the compressor (20) connected to “a HVAC&R system 10” for compressing and discharging “refrigerant gas” (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Liu to compress refrigerant as taught by Nemit in order to provide the benefits taught by Liu of noise attenuation over a wide frequency range as taught in Liu’s ¶¶ 14-15 to the context of a refrigeration system as taught by Nemit.
Regarding the limitations of claim 14, refer to the above rejection of claim 2.
Regarding the limitations of claim 15, refer to the above rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, alone or in combination with Nemit as discussed above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0020975 A1 to König.
PNG
media_image3.png
580
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 9, Liu teaches a gas compressor having one or more hollow cells formed in a diffuser thereof as “quarter-wave resonators” for attenuating sound generated by the compressor. Liu does not teach any of these resonators being “configured as a groove in a wall of the diffuser” as taught in claim 7, extending continuously about an entirety of a rotational axis of the compressor as taught in claim 8, or being radially aligned and spaced-apart from at least one other such groove formed in the wall as taught in claim 9. König teaches in fig. 2, shown above, as well as in ¶¶ 77 and 81, a radial compressor (100) having a plurality of grooves (50) formed at a diffuser (20) for noise attenuation (“To prevent the propagation of the sound waves in the annular chamber 30 of the diffuser 20” in ¶ 81) as taught in claim 7, these grooves extending continuously around an axis (11) of the compressor (100) (“one or more circumferential/annular grooves 50 that extend annularly around the axis 11” in ¶ 81) as taught in claim 8, and teaches multiple such grooves (with “one or more” taught in ¶ 81 and six shown in fig. 2) spaced apart and all aligned (being taught as “circumferential/annular grooves 50”) as taught in claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Liu with the use of annular grooves as noise attenuating structures taught by König because König teaches in ¶ 44 that such grooves provide sound reduction such that “no further sound insulation measures are required, in particular in the pipeline system. Both a radiation of noise and also the excitation of pipeline vibrations can be considerably reduced” and do so with greater structural simplicity than the plate (20) of Liu which requires perforations of different sizes and arrangements for the cells (34 and 36).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, alone or in combination with Nemit as discussed above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2021/187313 A1 to Maeta. US Publication No. 2023/0135302 A1 is presented as an English-language equivalent of Maeta, being a publication of the US application resulting from PCT entry of the same international application published in the WIPO publication of Maeta. Citations to Maeta including paragraph numbers are directed to this English-language document rather than to the Japanese-language WIPO publication.
PNG
media_image4.png
230
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches a gas compressor having one or more hollow cells formed in a diffuser thereof as “quarter-wave resonators” for attenuating sound generated by the compressor. Liu does not teach the length or depth (L) of these resonators being determined according to the formula:
L
=
2
n
-
1
4
λ
such that n is a whole number and λ is a wavelength of sound to be attenuated by these resonators. Maeta teaches in fig. 8, shown above, and in ¶¶ 61-62, a compressor having a number of sound reducers (205) formed as tubes recessed into a surface (241S) within the compressor. Maeta particularly teaches that “The depth L of the recessed portion 205R from the surface 241S (that is, the sum of the length of the entrance portion Ra and the bottom portion Rb) is a quarter length of the wavelength λ of the sound to be reduced. That is, L=(¼)×λ.” (¶ 62). The formula of Maeta’s ¶ 62 corresponds to the claimed formula in an embodiment where n=1, so that:
L
=
2
(
n
=
1
)
-
1
4
λ
L
=
2
-
1
4
λ
=
1
4
λ
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Liu with the dimensions of the sound attenuating tubes taught by Maeta in order to provide tubes properly scaled for the attenuation of sound to effectively and reliably reduce the noise generated by the operation of the compressor.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Maeta as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, with or without the additional teachings of Nemit as discussed above, and further in view of König.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Liu teaches a gas compressor having one or more hollow cells formed in a diffuser thereof as “quarter-wave resonators” for attenuating sound generated by the compressor. Maeta teaches a compressor having sound attenuating tube equivalent to the resonators of Liu and teaches the length/depth (L) of these holes to be given by the formula L=(¼)×λ, where λ is the wavelength of the sound to be reduced. Neither Liu nor Maeta teaches the sound corresponding to the wavelength λ used in this formula have a frequency which is a blade passing frequency of an impeller of the compressor as taught in claim 11, or a harmonic of such a frequency as taught in claim 12. König teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and in ¶¶ 54 and 81, a radial compressor (100) having a plurality of grooves (50) formed at a diffuser (20) for noise attenuation (“To prevent the propagation of the sound waves in the annular chamber 30 of the diffuser 20” and that these “circumferential/annular grooves [50] act as acoustic resonators, in particular as lambda/4 resonators” in ¶ 81), and teaches specifically in ¶ 54 that “The frequency to be reflected may particularly preferably be a vane impeller rotational frequency ("blade passing frequency") of a radial compressor [as taught in instant claim 11] or a second harmonic or third harmonic or fourth harmonic of the vane impeller rotational frequency of the radial compressor [as taught in instant claim 12].” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Liu with the sound attenuating tubes dimensioned to address the frequencies of sound discussed by König in order to provide tubes properly scaled for the attenuation of sound to effectively and reliably reduce the noise generated by the operation of the compressor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights