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 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 1-3 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 1 recites the limitations “the liquid refrigerant”, “the low-pressure gas refrigerant”, and “the air gap of the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is recommended to earlier establish that the refrigerant may be in liquid and low-pressure gas form, and that the motor has an air gap. Additionally, the term “low-pressure” in claims 1 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any degree of pressure will be considered to meet low-pressure, though it appears that the R1233zd refrigerant is “low-pressure”. Claims 2-3 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1, and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation “a liquid refrigerant” and “an air gap”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from those of claim 1. It is believed that they are the same.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “a low-pressure gas refrigerant” and “an air gap”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from those of claim 1. It is believed that they are the same.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitations “the liquid refrigerant”, “the low-pressure gas refrigerant”, and “the air gap of the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is recommended to earlier establish that the refrigerant may be in liquid and low-pressure gas form, and that the motor has an air gap. Additionally, the term “low-pressure” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any degree of pressure will be considered to meet low-pressure, though it appears that the R1233zd refrigerant is “low-pressure”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horn et al. (US 2014/0165626: cited by Applicant) in view of Nijhuis et al. (US 2011/0109175).
Regarding claim 1, Van Horn et al. discloses a centrifugal chiller comprising:
a closed refrigeration cycle that includes a centrifugal compressor, a condenser, a decompression device, and an evaporator connected in sequence via piping and is filled with a refrigerant (see at least paragraphs [0013]; [0006]); wherein
the refrigerant is a R1233zd(E) refrigerant (see at least paragraph [0095]);
the centrifugal compressor has a direct drive configuration in which a rotating shaft of an impeller is directly joined to a motor (see at least paragraphs [0016]; [0015]: rotor shaft is of an impeller); and
the rotating shaft is supported by an oil-free ceramic bearing (see at least paragraph [0016]),
Van Horn et al. does not disclose wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor.
Nijhuis et al. teaches wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor (see at least paragraph [0010]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the chiller of Van Horn et al. with wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor, as taught by Nijhuis et al., to improve the chiller of Van Horn et al. by allowing for rotor dynamics to be less declined by fluid dynamics in the gap during operation and thus to avoid damages cause by hydrodynamically caused instability (see at least Nijhuis et al. paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Creamer (US 2014/0341710).
Regarding claim 2, Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. is silent regarding wherein a liquid refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling and lubricating medium for at least one of a bearing housing of the bearing and an air gap of the motor.
It was, however, known in the art to provide wherein a liquid refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling and lubricating medium for at least one of a bearing housing of the bearing and an air gap of the motor, as evidenced by Creamer (see at least paragraph [0024]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the chiller of Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. with wherein a liquid refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling and lubricating medium for at least one of a bearing housing of the bearing and an air gap of the motor, since, as evidenced by Creamer, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of reducing the need for a separate supply of bearing fluid (see at least Creamer paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thornton et al. (WO 2014/200476).
Regarding claim 3, Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. is silent regarding wherein a low-pressure gas refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling medium for an air gap of the motor.
Thornton et al. teaches another centrifugal chiller wherein a low-pressure gas refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling medium for an air gap of the motor (see at least paragraphs [0013]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the chiller of Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. with wherein a low-pressure gas refrigerant from the refrigeration cycle can be circulated as a cooling medium for an air gap of the motor, as taught by Thornton et al. to improve the chiller of Van Horn et al. in view of Nijhuis et al. by allowing for cooling tapped off from the refrigerant circuit rather than providing a separate dedicated system, thus improving the efficiency and simplicity of the chiller.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horn et al. (US 2014/0165626: cited by Applicant) in view of Nijhuis et al. (US 2011/0109175).
Regarding claim 4, Van Horn et al. discloses A centrifugal chiller comprising:
a closed refrigeration cycle that includes a centrifugal compressor, a condenser, a decompression device, and an evaporator connected in sequence via piping and is filled with a refrigerant (see at least paragraphs [0013]; [0006]); wherein
the refrigerant is a R1233zd(E) refrigerant (see at least paragraph [0095]);
the centrifugal compressor has a direct drive configuration in which a rotating shaft of an impeller is directly joined to a motor (see at least paragraphs [0016]; [0015]: rotor shaft is of an impeller); and
the rotating shaft is supported by a magnetic bearing (see at least paragraph [0016]),
Van Horn et al. does not disclose wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor.
Nijhuis et al. teaches wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor (see at least paragraph [0010]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the chiller of Van Horn et al. with wherein a helical groove which allows the liquid refrigerant or the low-pressure gas refrigerant supplied to the air gap of the motor to flow axially outward is provided on at least one of an inner peripheral surface of a stator of the motor, an outer peripheral surface of a rotor, and an outer peripheral surface of a balance ring provided on an end surface of the rotor, as taught by Nijhuis et al., to improve the chiller of Van Horn et al. by allowing for rotor dynamics to be less declined by fluid dynamics in the gap during operation and thus to avoid damages cause by hydrodynamically caused instability (see at least Nijhuis et al. paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights