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 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.
Claim 1, lines 6-8 (as counted within the claim rather than by the page-by-page numbering presented in the application as filed) teaches that “the threshold event includes the receiver receiving a temperature data… exceeding a threshold temperature” (emphasis by examiner). The specification as originally filed with US Application No. 17/743317 (hereafter “the parent application” as the present application is a continuation of this previous application) teaches at least in pg. 21, lines 19-29 which refers both to the step of “detect[ing] when the temperature is at or above a threshold temperature” and to a temperature measurement “indicating or exceeding a threshold temperature” by “raising to or above a temperature ceiling”. The specification as originally filed does not teach a version of the claimed controller or the method it enacts determining a threshold event from temperature data exceeding a threshold temperature but not from the data equaling this threshold. For this reason, the controller of claim 1 which teaches this determination made only from the temperature data exceeding the threshold and not from the data equaling the threshold represents new matter relative to the specification as originally filed and claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 10 teaches a method which includes the limitations discussed above with regard to claim 1 regarding the calibration event and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 17 teaches a computer-readable medium storing instructions to perform a method which includes the limitations discussed above with regard to claim 1 regarding the calibration event and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
MPEP 602.05 Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications states (with emphasis by examiner):
A copy of the oath or declaration from a prior nonprovisional application may be filed in a continuation or divisional application even if the specification for the continuation or divisional application is different from that of the prior application, in that revisions have been made to clarify the text to incorporate amendments made in the prior application, or to make other changes provided the changes do not constitute new matter relative to the prior application. If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
Because the instant application recites new matter not presented in the parent application, this new matter should be cancelled from the application or the instant application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 10-20 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.
Claim 10 teaches in line 8 a step of “re-calibrating a bearing system”. The same claim teaches in line 1, in its preamble, “a bearing system of a compressor”. Because of the use of “a” rather than “the” or “said” in line 8, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether “a bearing system” in line 8 refers to the same element as “a bearing system of a compressor” in line 1 of the claim or refers to an additional bearing system required for the practice of the claimed method. Further, while the method is taught in the preamble for “calibrating a bearing system of a compressor”, the step taught in line 8 refers to “re-calibrating a bearing system” and this difference between “calibrating” and “re-calibrating” further makes it unclear whether the “bearing systems” of these passages refer to the same structure. For this reason, the structure of the system recited for the practice of the method of claim 10 and the steps performed by this claim with regard to the system cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the teaching of “a bearing system” in line 8 of claim 10 has been interpreted as referring to the same structure as the recitation presented in line 1 of the claim, including interpreting the article “a” in line 8 is though it read “the”.
Claim 17 teaches “a bearing system of a compressor” in line 3 (within the claim’s preamble) and “a bearing system” in line 10. For the same reasons discussed above with regard to claim 10, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite and has been interpreted in the same manner described above.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 includes a teaching that “the temperature data include an ambient temperature” (in line 9 of claim 1, line 7 of claim 10, and line 10 of claim 17), with the verb “include” treating “data” as a plural noun. Dependent claims 2 and 11 each teach in their respective line 1 that “the environmental data includes a temperature”, with the verb “includes” treating “data” as a singular noun. It is requested that the claims be amended to treat the word “data” consistently and to use only one of “include” or “includes” with this noun across the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,702 B2, hereafter “the reference patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are fully anticipated within the teachings of the claims of the reference patent.
Reference claim 1 teaches limitations from instant claim 1 as shown below with
differences in claim language identified and discussed following the claim text.
Reference Claim 1
Instant Claim 1
A controller comprising:
a receiver to receive environmental data of an environment pertaining to a compressor;
a threshold event detector to:
detect occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes the receiver receiving a temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor being at or above a threshold temperature, and
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
a calibrator to re-calibrate a bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
A controller comprising:
a receiver to receive environmental data of an environment pertaining to a compressor;
a threshold event detector to:
detect occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes the receiver receiving a temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor exceeding a threshold temperature,
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
a calibrator to re-calibrate a bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
In the first difference underlined above, the reference claim teaches the received data “being at or above” the threshold temperature as the calibration event, which includes in its scope and thus teaches and anticipates the language of the instant claim which teaches the received data “exceeding” the threshold temperature (that is, being above but not “at” the threshold temperature.)
In the second difference, the word “and” between clauses in the refence claim does not materially affect its scope or its teachings of the subject matter of the instant claim.
Reference claim 2 teaches limitations from instant claim 2 using identical language.
Reference claim 3 teaches limitations from instant claim 4 using identical language.
Reference claim 4 teaches limitations from instant claim 5 using identical language.
Reference claim 5 teaches limitations from instant claim 6 using identical language.
Reference claim 6 teaches limitations from instant claim 7 using identical language.
Reference claim 7 teaches limitations from instant claim 8 using identical language.
Reference claim 8 teaches limitations from instant claim 9 using identical language.
Reference claim 9 teaches limitations from instant claim 10 as shown below with
differences in claim language identified and discussed following the claim text.
Reference Claim 9
Instant Claim 10
A method of calibrating a bearing system of a compressor, the method comprising:
receiving environmental data of an environment pertaining to the compressor;
detecting occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes receiving temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor being at or above a threshold temperature, and
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
re-calibrating the bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
A method of calibrating a bearing system of a compressor, the method comprising:
receiving environmental data of an environment pertaining to the compressor;
detecting occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes receiving temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor exceeding a threshold temperature,
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
re-calibrating a bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
In the first difference underlined above, the reference claim teaches the received data “being at or above” the threshold temperature as the calibration event, which includes in its scope and thus teaches and anticipates the language of the instant claim which teaches the received data “exceeding” the threshold temperature (that is, being above but not “at” the threshold temperature.)
In the second difference, the word “and” between clauses in the refence claim does not materially affect its scope or its teachings of the subject matter of the instant claim.
In the third difference, the use of “a” instead of “the” in the instant claim represents an error in the antecedent basis of the recited “bearing system” as discussed above in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and has been interpreted as though the word “the” were used, matching the teachings of the reference patent.
Reference claim 10 teaches limitations from instant claim 12 using identical language, differing only in the number of the claim on which they depend (with reference claim 9 being equivalent in subject matter to instant claim 10 as discussed above.)
Reference claim 11 teaches limitations from instant claim 15 using identical language, differing only in the number of the claim on which they depend (with reference claim 9 being equivalent in subject matter to instant claim 10 as discussed above.)
Reference claim 12 teaches limitations from instant claim 16 using identical language, differing only in the number of the claim on which they depend (with reference claim 9 being equivalent in subject matter to instant claim 10 as discussed above.)
Reference claim 13 teaches limitations from instant claim 17 as shown below with
differences in claim language identified and discussed following the claim text.
Reference Claim 13
Instant Claim 17
A non-transitory computer-readable medium for a controller that stores computer-executable instructions that, upon execution, cause one or more processors to execute functions for calibrating a bearing system of a compressor, the instructions comprising:
receiving environmental data of an environment pertaining to the compressor;
detecting occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes receiving temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor being at or above a threshold temperature, and
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
re-calibrating the bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium for a controller that stores computer-executable instructions that, upon execution, cause one or more processors to execute functions for calibrating a bearing system of a compressor, the instructions comprising:
receiving environmental data of an environment pertaining to the compressor;
detecting occurrence of a calibration threshold event based on the received environmental data,
wherein the calibration threshold event includes receiving temperature data of the environment pertaining to the compressor exceeding a threshold temperature,
wherein the temperature data include an ambient temperature; and
re-calibrating a bearing system based on the detected calibration threshold event by controlling placement of a shaft relative to the bearing system of the compressor.
In the first difference underlined above, the reference claim teaches the received data “being at or above” the threshold temperature as the calibration event, which includes in its scope and thus teaches and anticipates the language of the instant claim which teaches the received data “exceeding” the threshold temperature (that is, being above but not “at” the threshold temperature.)
In the second difference, the word “and” between clauses in the refence claim does not materially affect its scope or its teachings of the subject matter of the instant claim.
In the third difference, the use of “a” instead of “the” in the instant claim represents an error in the antecedent basis of the recited “bearing system” as discussed above in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and has been interpreted as though the word “the” were used, matching the teachings of the reference patent.
Reference claim 15 teaches limitations from instant claim 19 using identical language, differing only in the number of the claim on which they depend (with reference claim 13 being equivalent in subject matter to instant claim 17 as discussed above.)
Reference claim 16 teaches limitations from instant claim 20 using identical language, differing only in the number of the claim on which they depend (with reference claim 13 being equivalent in subject matter to instant claim 17 as discussed above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Publication No. 113563734 A to Zhu, an English translation of which is provided with this Office Action, teaches a magnetic suspension bearing for a motor and a control system for such a motor which receives a motor temperature signal and an acceleration signal and performs rotor position control and sensitivity calibration on the motor and its bearings based on the received data (Abstract and ¶ 28 of the translation), but does not explicitly teach such a motor being installed in a compressor such that the received data is “environmental data of an environment pertaining to the compressor”, and further does not teach this environmental data including an ambient temperature, or the threshold event triggering such calibration being a determination that the received temperature data is greater than a threshold temperature as taught in the instant independent claims.
UK Publication No. 2,452,128 to Powell teaches a method of controlling a compressor to provide maximized efficiency, the method including periodic re-calibration of the compressor based on sensed parameters of its operation (pg. 3, line 21-pg. 4, line 13), but does not teach or suggest the particular method of the instant claims in which environmental data which includes an ambient temperature is compared to a threshold temperature and in which bearings of the compressor are particularly recalibrated relative to a shaft of the compressor when the temperature data is greater than a threshold temperature as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
699
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2020/0003214 A1 to Johnson et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and in ¶ 39 that a compressor (100) may be recalibrated based on the measurement of temperature by an internal temperature sensor (180) so that radial bearings (200) and/or axial bearings (270) are adjusted relative to a shaft of a rotor (210) of the compressor to provide larger clearance if the sensed temperature is lower than a threshold or to provide a smaller clearance if the sensed temperature is higher than a threshold as taught in the instant independent claims, but does not teach the sensed temperature data upon which this control is based including an ambient temperature as taught in the amended instant claims.
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