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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Radial piston compressor with transmission element and piston guide ring
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 8, line 3, the phrase “surfaces” should be changed to “surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: transmission element in claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13.
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.
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.
Claims 9 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 9 recites “a metal with a small coefficient of sliding friction”. However, no particular standard or guide is given, either in the claims or specification, as to how one determines with a reasonable level of certainty whether a given metal has a sufficiently small coefficient of sliding friction. As such, Examiner believes this limitation is overly vague and indefinite.
Claims 12 recites “an independent transmission element” in line 2. However, claim 1 already recites a transmission element. Are the independent transmission elements one and the same with the transmission element introduced in claim 1, one of which would be present in each piston-cylinder assembly mentioned in claim 11? With Or different. Examiner requires clarification.
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 1-3, 5, 8-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,965. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of ‘965 overlaps with the entirety of claim 1 of the current application (Examiner noting the claim 1 of ‘965 then continues to add additional limitations at col. 12, line 64). Similarly, claim 2 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 2 of the current application, claim 3 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 3 of the current application, claim 4 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 5 of the current application, claim 6 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 8 of the current application, claim 9 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 7 of the current application, claim 8 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 10 of the current application, claim 10 of ‘965 matches completely with claim 13 of the current application
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christenson (US 2,818,816) in view of Grassinger (GB685672).
Claim 1: Christenson discloses radial piston piston-cylinder assembly that could be used as a compressor (Figs. 1-2), comprising a piston (20); a cylinder bore (note bore for 20), in which the piston is arranged displaceably along a center line of the cylinder bore; a drive shaft (19) with an axis of rotation and with a cylindrical eccentric (26), the center point of which is spaced apart from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft (Figs. 1-2), wherein, during a rotational movement of the drive shaft, the piston is movable by the cylindrical eccentric in the cylinder bore in a manner directed outward in the radial direction away from the drive shaft as far as a top dead center (Figs. 1-2); and a transmission element (28), which transmits the movement of the eccentric to the piston for generating the movement of the piston outward in the cylinder bore in a manner directed away from the drive shaft, wherein the transmission element has a first supporting surface (note radially interior rounded surface of 28) with which the transmission element is supported on a cylinder surface of the eccentric (Fig. 2); wherein the piston has a concavely shaped, first operative surface (note radially inward surface of 31) facing the transmission element, and the transmission element has a convexly shaped, second supporting surface facing the first operative surface (note outer surface of 28), wherein the first operative surface and the second supporting surface form a form-fitting connection which is effective in the circumferential direction of the eccentric (Fig. 2), and wherein a cylindrical piston guide ring (32) is provided, through which the piston is movable in the cylinder bore in a manner directed inward toward the drive shaft in the radial direction from the top dead center as far as a bottom dead center (Figs. 2-3), wherein the piston has a convexly shaped, second operative surface (note curved radially outward surface through which 32 passes) which faces an inner shell surface of the piston guide ring (Figs. 2) and which, together with the inner shell surface of the piston guide ring, forms a form-fitting connection which is effective in the direction of the center line of the cylinder bore (Figs. 1-2).
While Christenson is not explicit about the apparatus being used as a compressor it is well known for similar radial configurations to have applicability as a compressor in additional to pumping activities, as shown by Grassinger (see Figs. 1-2, noting Title “…for pumps and compressors”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Christenson’s apparatus like that in Grassinger to broaden its versatility in additional pumping contexts.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US2012011185) in view of Grassinger (GB685672).
Claim 1: Stephenson discloses radial piston piston-cylinder assembly that could be used as a compressor (Figs. 2-3), comprising a piston (52/54); a cylinder bore (note bore for 39), in which the piston is arranged displaceably along a center line of the cylinder bore; a drive shaft (40) with an axis of rotation and with a cylindrical eccentric (44), the center point of which is spaced apart from the axis of rotation of the drive shaft (Figs. 2-3), wherein, during a rotational movement of the drive shaft, the piston is movable by the cylindrical eccentric in the cylinder bore in a manner directed outward in the radial direction away from the drive shaft as far as a top dead center (Figs. 2-3); and a transmission element (46), which transmits the movement of the eccentric to the piston for generating the movement of the piston outward in the cylinder bore in a manner directed away from the drive shaft, wherein the transmission element (46, or at least a portion of the bearing) has a first supporting surface with which the transmission element is supported on a cylinder surface of the eccentric (Fig. 2, note surface interface between 46/44); wherein the piston has a concavely shaped, first operative surface (note radially inward surface of 56) facing the transmission element, and the transmission element has a convexly shaped, second supporting surface facing the first operative surface (note surface of 46 touching the bottom surface of 56), wherein the first operative surface and the second supporting surface form a form-fitting connection which is effective in the circumferential direction of the eccentric (Figs. 2-3), and in that a cylindrical piston guide ring (58) is provided, through which the piston is movable in the cylinder bore in a manner directed inward toward the drive shaft in the radial direction from the top dead center as far as a bottom dead center (Figs. 2-3), wherein the piston has a convexly shaped, second operative surface (note curved radially outward surface of 56) which faces an inner shell surface of the piston guide ring (Figs. 2-3) and which, together with the inner shell surface of the piston guide ring, forms a form-fitting connection which is effective in the direction of the center line of the cylinder bore (Figs. 2-3).
While Stephenson is not explicit about the apparatus being used as a compressor it is well known for similar radial configurations to have applicability as a compressor in additional to pumping activities, as shown by Grassinger (see Figs. 1-2, noting Title “…for pumps and compressors”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Stephenson’s apparatus like that in Grassinger to broaden its versatility in additional pumping contexts.
Claim 2: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson further discloses that the first supporting surface of the transmission element is one of a flat surface and a concavely shaped cylinder shell section (Figs. 2-3) with a first supporting surface radius (note radius at 47), the first supporting surface radius corresponding to the radius of the cylindrical surface of the eccentric (Fig. 2).
Claim 3: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson further discloses that the second supporting surface of the transmission element and the first operative surface of the piston are cylinder shell sections with a second supporting surface radius (Fig. 2, note sections involving the second supporting surface of the transmission elements and the first operative surfaces of the pistons), OR wherein the second supporting surface of the transmission element is a spherical surface section and the first operative surface of the piston is a ball socket with a second supporting surface radius.
Claim 11: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson further discloses a plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies which are arranged distributed uniformly in a circumferential direction as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 2-3), wherein the cylinder bores are provided in a cylinder block and the individual pistons are driven by an eccentric via a single drive shaft (see Figs. 2-3).
Claim 12: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson further discloses that each individual piston engages with the eccentric via an independent transmission element (as this limitation only requires one individual piston be chosen to be matched with one transmission element so as to be compliant with claim 1, Examiner chooses one of the pistons of Stephenson to be correlated with the accompanying transmission element (46) in each piston-cylinder assembly.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US2012011185) in view of Grassinger (GB685672) and in further view of Marette (US20140322050).
Claims 9 and 13: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson does not further disclose that the transmission element is manufactured from a metal such as bronze with a small coefficient of sliding friction or a metal alloy with a small coefficient of sliding friction. However, Marette teaches a piston pump assembly whose bearing/transmission element utilize bronze sleeves (see paragraph 10). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a transmission element made from low-friction metal as taught by Marette into the apparatus of Stephenson in order to reduce friction (see paragraph 10 of Marette).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US2012011185) in view of Grassinger (GB685672) and in further view of Albertin (US 5,634,777).
Claim 10: Stephenson and Grassinger teach the previous limitations. Stephenson does not disclose at least one of the first supporting surface of the transmission element and the first operative surface of the piston has a recess forming a lubricant reservoir. However, Albertin teaches using a transmission element (123) in which at least one of a first supporting surface of the transmission element (note ports/ reservoirs 214/212) and the first operative surface of the piston has a recess forming a lubricant reservoir. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a transmission element made from low-friction metal as taught by Albertin into the apparatus of Stephenson in order to spread the lubricated surface contact over a larger area in reducing friction generated between sliding surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 6, while the prior art of record further discloses at least a portion of a rolling contact bearing is arranged on the eccentric, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination the rolling contact bearing including an outer ring having a cylindrical outer shell surface, wherein the first supporting surface of the transmission element is supported on the cylinder surface of the eccentric by the rolling contact bearing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 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, 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746