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 INTERPRETATION
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.
Claim limitations:
Segment of claims 23-26, 35 the claim limitation “pressure reducer” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholders “reducer” coupled with functional language “configured to reduce” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 23-26, 35 and depending claims 27, 28 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“pressure reducer” has been interpreted to be venturi, or impeller, or ejector.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-24, 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamer (2017/0248346 A1), in view of Shakuda (US 2018/0245600 A1).
Claim 18: Creamer discloses a compressor (10) for a heat transfer circuit (intended use), the compressor comprising:
a housing (see FIG.3; paragraph [108]: compressor housing); and
a shaft (28) rotatable relative to the housing to compress a working fluid received at a suction inlet (suction inlet is inherent in order to receive fluid via the inlet; see FIG.3),
the shaft (28) being supported by a gas bearing (32/34 see FIG.2), the gas bearing including a bearing housing (inherent; bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) having a fluid inlet and an outlet (inlet/outlet inherent in order to receive & feed fluid); and
a controller (paragraph [43]: control system).
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 18, but fails to disclose a controller for controlling a vent pressure of the gas bearing to control and/or maintain a differential pressure across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance distance between the gas bearing and the shaft.
However, Shakuda teaches a controller (84) for controlling a vent pressure (P3) of the gas bearing (paragraph [31]: bearing and rotary shaft 30) to control and/or maintain a differential pressure (paragraph [50]: vent pressure difference is less than predetermined threshold value as predetermined condition, pressure difference is detected by internal pressure differential pressure gauge and vent pressure difference detected by vent pressure differential pressure gauge) across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance distance (paragraph [68]: clearance S) between the gas bearing and the shaft (paragraph [50]: seal gas evacuated from seal clearance S from vent portion 74) for the purpose of preventing the backflow of the gas in the gas seal portion and increasing reliability of the rotary machine (paragraph [9/12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Creamer to include a controller for controlling a vent pressure of the gas bearing to control and/or maintain a differential pressure across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance distance between the gas bearing and the shaft as taught by Shakuda in order to prevent the backflow of the gas in the gas seal portion and to increase reliability of the rotary machine.
Claim 19: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the compressor (10) is fluidly connected together with a condenser (12), an expander (14), and an evaporator (16).
Claim 20: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, further comprising a high pressure gas source (paragraph [108]: vapor is taken from stage 2 impeller casing and passed through conduits schematic shown in FIG.2 with dashed lines in compressor housing to the bearing 32/34) fluidly connected to the fluid inlet (inlet/outlet inherent in order to receive & feed fluid) of the bearing housing (bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) for supplying high pressure fluid to the fluid inlet of the gas bearing (32/34).
Claim 21: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 19, further comprising a high pressure gas source (paragraph [108]: vapor is taken from stage 2 impeller casing and passed through conduits schematic shown in FIG.2 with dashed lines in compressor housing to the bearing 32/34) fluidly connected to the fluid inlet (inlet/outlet inherent in order to receive & feed fluid) of the bearing housing (bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) for supplying high pressure fluid to the fluid inlet of the gas bearing (32/34),
wherein the high pressure gas source comprises a conduit (paragraph [108]: vapor is taken from stage 2 impeller casing and passed through conduits schematic shown in FIG.2 with dashed lines in compressor housing to the bearing 34) extending from at least one of the condenser (12), the evaporator, or between the condenser (12) and the evaporator (16) and to the compressor (10), wherein the conduit is configured to supply a portion of the working fluid (intended use) into the fluid inlet of the gas bearing (32/34).
Claim 22: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 21, wherein the portion (inherent) of the working fluid is a mixture of gas and liquid fluid (paragraph [105]) from the heat transfer circuit (intended use).
Claim 23: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, further comprising a pressure reducer (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer) fluidly connected to the outlet (inherent) of the gas bearing (32/34) configured to reduce the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the gas bearing (32/34).
Claim 24: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the compressor (10) is a centrifugal compressor and the shaft (28) is configured to rotate (functional language).
Creamer as modified discloses the claimed limitations in claim 24, except for a minimum of 10,000 revolutions per minute to at or about a maximum of 150,000 revolutions per minute. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Creamer to include to rotate from at or about a minimum of 10,000 revolutions per minute to at or about a maximum of 150,000 revolutions per minute in order to control the operation of the compressor by keeping the rotation speed within certain range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art. Note that no criticality was claimed for the limitations (Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 29: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the gas bearing (32/34) is a radial bearing that supports the shaft (28) radially (paragraph [108]).
Claim 30: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the gas bearing (32/34) is an aerostatic bearing or a hybrid bearing (paragraph [20]: type of hydrodynamic bearing with a supply of portion of vapor from impeller assembly referred to as “hybrid” bearing).
Claim 31: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 30, wherein the aerostatic bearing is a foil bearing or a groove bearing or the hybrid bearing is made of porous media comprising a carbon- graphite material or is a fixed geometry orifice fed hybrid gas bearing (paragraph [20]: type of hydrodynamic bearing with a supply of portion of vapor from impeller assembly referred to as “hybrid” bearing).
Claim 32: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the differential pressure (Shakuda, paragraph [50]) across the gas bearing (32/34) between a pressure of the fluid inlet of the bearing housing and the vent pressure is at least 60 PSI (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Creamer to include the vent pressure is at least 60 PSI in order to control pressure of the fluid as entering the bearing housing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 33: Creamer discloses the method comprising:
compressing a working fluid received at a suction inlet (suction inlet is inherent in order to receive fluid via the inlet; see FIG.3) of the compressor (10) by rotation of the shaft (28);
supporting the shaft (28) using a gas bearing (32/34 see FIG.2), the gas bearing (32/34) including a bearing housing (inherent; bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) having a fluid inlet and an outlet (inlet/outlet inherent in order to receive & feed fluid);
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 33, but fails to disclose a method for controlling a differential pressure across a gas bearing of a compressor, wherein the gas bearing supports a shaft of the compressor, controlling a vent pressure of the gas bearing to control and/or maintain a differential pressure across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance between the gas bearing and the shaft.
However, Shakuda teaches a method for controlling (84) a differential pressure (paragraph [50]: vent pressure difference is less than predetermined threshold value as predetermined condition, pressure difference is detected by internal pressure differential pressure gauge and vent pressure difference detected by vent pressure differential pressure gauge) across a gas bearing of a compressor (paragraph [68]: clearance S), wherein the gas bearing supports a shaft of the compressor, controlling a vent pressure (P3) of the gas bearing to control and/or maintain a differential pressure across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance between the gas bearing and the shaft (paragraph [50]: seal gas evacuated from seal clearance S from vent portion 74) for the purpose of preventing the backflow of the gas in the gas seal portion and increasing reliability of the rotary machine (paragraph [9/12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Creamer to include a method for controlling a differential pressure across a gas bearing of a compressor, wherein the gas bearing supports a shaft of the compressor, controlling a vent pressure of the gas bearing to control and/or maintain a differential pressure across the gas bearing to a determined value to maintain a clearance between the gas bearing and the shaft as taught by Shakuda in order to prevent the backflow of the gas in the gas seal portion and to increase reliability of the rotary machine.
Claim 34: Creamer as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 33, further comprising receiving a fluid from a high pressure gas source (paragraph [108]: vapor is taken from stage 2 impeller casing and passed through conduits schematic shown in FIG.2 with dashed lines in compressor housing to the bearing 32/34) at the fluid inlet (inlet/outlet inherent in order to receive & feed fluid) of a bearing housing (bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) of the gas bearing (32/34).
Claim 35: Creamer as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 33, further comprising venting the fluid from the bearing housing (bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) at the outlet of the bearing housing to a pressure reducer configured to reduce (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer) the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the gas bearing (32/34).
Claims 25, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamer (2017/0248346 A1), in view of Shakuda (US 2018/0245600 A1), and in view of Morgan (2018/0038380 A1).
Claim 25: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 24, further comprising a pressure reducer (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer) fluidly connected to the outlet (inherent) of the gas bearing (32/34) configured to reduce the vent pressure of the gas bearing, wherein the controller (paragraph [43]: control system) to reduce the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the gas bearing (Shakuda, paragraph [31]) to control and/or maintain the differential pressure across the gas bearing to the determined value (Shakuda, paragraph [50]).
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 25, but fails to disclose inlet guide vanes of the centrifugal compressor, wherein the controller is configured to control the inlet guide vanes to an at least partially closed position.
However, Morgan teaches inlet guide vanes (32a/32b) of the centrifugal compressor (22), wherein the controller (20) is configured to control the inlet guide vanes (32a/32b) to an at least partially closed position (functional language) for the purpose of controlling the flow rate of refrigerant gas (paragraph [4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Creamer to include inlet guide vanes of the centrifugal compressor, wherein the controller is configured to control the inlet guide vanes to an at least partially closed position as taught by Morgan in order to control the flow rate of refrigerant gas.
Claim 36: Creamer as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 33, wherein the compressor (10) is a centrifugal compressor, and wherein the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the fluid vented from the outlet of the bearing housing (bearing is disposed within rectangular shape housing shown in FIG.2) is reduced by (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer).
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 36, but fails to disclose at least partially closing inlet guide vanes of the centrifugal compressor.
However, Morgan teaches at least partially closing (functional language) inlet guide vanes (32a/32b) of the centrifugal compressor (22) for the purpose of controlling the flow rate of refrigerant gas (paragraph [4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Creamer to include at least partially closing inlet guide vanes of the centrifugal compressor as taught by Morgan in order to control the flow rate of refrigerant gas.
Claims 26-28, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamer (2017/0248346 A1), in view of Shakuda (US 2018/0245600 A1), and in view of of Larminat (2007/0212232 A1).
Claim 26: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 24, further comprising a pressure reducer (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer) fluidly connected to the outlet (inherent) of the gas bearing (32/34) configured to reduce the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the gas bearing (32/34), wherein the pressure reducer (22) is configured to use the working fluid as a motive fluid (intended use) to reduce the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the gas bearing (32/34).
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 26, but fails to disclose a venturi connected to a suction line of the centrifugal compressor.
However, Larminat teaches a venturi (130) connected to a suction line of the centrifugal compressor (paragraph [48]: suction pipe 112 of compressor) for the purpose of creating pressure reduction sufficient to draw gas from suction pipe (paragraph [48]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Creamer to include a venturi connected to a suction line of the centrifugal compressor as taught by Larminat in order to create pressure reduction sufficient to draw gas from suction pipe.
Claim 27: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, further comprising a bypass line (Larminat, annotated by examiner in FIG.6) around the venturi (Larminat, 130).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 28: Creamer as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein a throat dimension throat dimension (Larminat, throat dimension is inherent) of the venturi (Larminat, 130) is adjustable (Larminat teaches venturi which includes throat dimension, except for dimension is adjustable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Creamer to include throat dimension is adjustable in order to adjust the venturi for different sizes as required as a matter of choice, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art-To Make Adjustable: MPEP 2144 V-D).
Claim 37: Creamer as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 33, wherein the vent pressure (Shakuda, P3) of the fluid vented from the outlet (inherent) of the bearing housing (32/34) is reduced (first impeller 22 used as pressure reducer) by increasing an amount of the working fluid (functional language).
Creamer discloses the claimed limitations in claim 37, but fails to disclose the heat transfer circuit further comprises a venturi connected to the suction inlet of the compresso, wherein the working fluid is a motive fluid for the venturi.
However, Larminat teaches a venturi (130) connected to the suction inlet of the compressor (paragraph [48]: suction pipe 112 of compressor), wherein the working fluid is a motive fluid for the venturi (130) for the purpose of creating pressure reduction sufficient to draw gas from suction pipe (paragraph [48]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Creamer to include a venturi connected to the suction inlet of the compressor, wherein the working fluid is a motive fluid for the venturi as taught by Larminat in order to create pressure reduction sufficient to draw gas from suction pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to fluid system:
Cunningham (2015/0345265 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights