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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 - 7 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoelzer (DE 3320855) in view of Reeves et al. (U.S. Patent # 4940080).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoelzer discloses a rotary machine (fig 3), comprising : a rotor (shaft 4, fig 2 same as fig 3) ; a housing (housing, fig 1 same as fig 3) enclosing the rotor (4).
Hoelzer does not disclose a rotor with a plurality of plates defining openings therebetween.
However, Reeves teaches a rotor (shaft 16, figs 1, 2 and 3) with a plurality of plates defining openings therebetween (openings between plurality of 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the rotor of Hoelzer with that of Reeves with a reasonable expectation of success so that the plurality of plates provide reinforcement to the rotor.
The combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses a flow restrictor (Hoelzer 3, 7, fig 3) comprising : a body (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) attached to a plate (Reeves 34) of the plurality of plates of the rotor (plurality of 34) and extending from the rotor toward the housing (Reeves 36 extends from Hoelzer 4 towards housing); and an extension (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) extending from the body toward the housing (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) to block fluid flow between the rotor and the housing (extension block fluid flow between the rotor and the housing as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below), wherein the extension extends in a direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing (Hoelzer - extension extends in a direction of rotation of the rotor 4 relative to the housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
776
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the extension comprises a convex surface facing the housing (convex surface of Hoelzer 6 facing the housing) and a concave surface opposite the convex surface (Hoelzer - concave surface of 6 opposite the convex surface), the extension forms a gap between the convex surface and the housing in a first position (Hoelzer – gap between convex surface of 6 and housing) , and the extension is flexible such that a pressure differential across the rotor imparts a force against the concave surface to flex the extension to close the gap and position the convex surface against the housing in a second position (Hoelzer 6 configured to flex toward the housing in response to a pressure differential across the rotor 4 to provide a seal against the housing by closing the gap).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the extension comprises : an angled surface extending obliquely from the body toward the housing ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below); and a distal surface that is offset from the housing to form a gap between the housing and the extension ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below), wherein the angled surface is configured to direct fluid flow toward the distal surface in the direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing to deflect fluid flow advancing toward the gap in an additional direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing (angled surface as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below configured to direct fluid flow toward the distal surface in the direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing to deflect fluid flow advancing toward the gap in an additional direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, comprising an additional extension extending orthogonally toward the housing (portion of 56 extends orthogonally to 14) to form a groove between the extension and the additional extension ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ), wherein the groove is configured to form fluid flow vortices to disrupt fluid flowing between the housing and the flow restrictor (groove is configured to form fluid flow vortices to disrupt fluid flowing between the Hoelzer housing and the flow restrictor).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the rotary machine comprises a plurality of zones (plurality of zones between plurality of Reeves 34, fig 1), each zone of the plurality of zones is configured to receive a different fluid flow ( Reeves - each zone of the plurality of zones is configured to receive a different fluid flow), the housing comprises a sector plate (Reeves - housing comprises sector plate 30) extending along a surface of the rotor between adjacent zones of the plurality of zones (Reeves sector plate extending along a surface of the rotor between adjacent zones of the plurality of zones of Reeves), and the flow restrictor extends between the plate of the plurality of plates of the rotor and the sector plate when the plate is in alignment with the sector plate (Hoelzer flow restrictor extends between 34 and 30 of Reeves).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the rotary machine comprises an outer wall (Hoelzer – outer wall of 4) positioned radially beyond the rotor (Hoelzer 4), and the flow restrictor (Hoelzer flow restrictor) extends between the plate of the plurality of plates of the rotor (Reeves - plate 34) and the outer wall (Hoelzer – outer wall of 4).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the housing comprises an inner structure (Hoelzer - inner structure of housing) about which the rotor is configured to rotate (Hoelzer 4 rotates on the inner structure of housing), and the flow restrictor extends between the plate of the plurality of plates of the rotor and the inner structure (Hoelzer – flow restrictor between Reeves 34 and the inner structure of housing of Hoelzer).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, comprising an additional extension extending from the body ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) toward the housing in an additional direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotor relative to the housing (additional extension in an additional direction as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, comprising adsorbent material disposed in the openings defined between the plurality of plates (Reeves - adsorbent material of 36 in the openings between plates 34, fig 1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotary machine, wherein the rotary machine comprises a rotary heat exchanger (Reeves - heat exchanger as described in the Field of the invention).
Regarding Claim 17, Hoelzer discloses a flow restrictor (3, 7, fig 3) of a rotary machine (fig 3), the flow restrictor comprising : a body (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below); and an extension (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) extending from a distal end of the body ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below), wherein the extension is configured to transition between a first position and a second position (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below), the extension comprises a convex surface facing away from the body ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ) and a concave surface facing toward the body (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ) such that the convex surface is spaced apart from a housing of the rotary machine in the first position (Hoelzer- gap between housing and body), and the extension is configured to flex toward the housing of the rotary machine in response to a pressure differential across the rotor imparting a force against the concave surface to place the convex surface against the housing (Hoelzer - the extension is configured to flex toward a housing of the rotary machine in response to a pressure differential across the rotor 4 imparting a force against the concave surface to place the convex surface against the housing).
Hoelzer does not disclose a rotor with a plate.
However, Reeves teaches a rotor (shaft 16, figs 1, 2 and 3) with a plurality of plates defining openings therebetween (openings between plurality of 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the rotor of Hoelzer with that of Reeves with a reasonable expectation of success so that the plurality of plates provide reinforcement to the rotor.
The combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses a body (Hoelzer body) configured to attach to opposite sides of a plate (Hoelzer body configured to attach to opposite sides of plate of Reeves) of a rotor (Hoelzer 4) of the rotary machine (Hoelzer fig 3).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the extension extends from the body in a direction of rotation of the rotor (Hoelzer extension extends from the body in a direction of rotation of the rotor as seen in examiner annotated fig 3 below).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the flow restrictor, comprising an additional extension (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) extending from the distal end of the body in an opposite direction of rotation of the rotor (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below), wherein the extension and the additional extension form a groove therebetween (extensions form a groove as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the extension is curved to form the concave surface facing the body and the convex surface facing away from the body ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ).
Claims 11 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoelzer in view of Reeves and in further view of Kozacka et al. (U.S. Patent # 5950707).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses a flow restrictor ( Hoelzer 3, 7, fig 3) for a rotary machine (fig 3), the flow restrictor comprising : a body (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below) configured to attach to a rotor of the rotary machine (Hoelzer rotor 1),
an end portion disposed opposite the body ( as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below).
Hoelzer does not disclose a rotor with a plate.
However, Reeves teaches a rotor (shaft 16, figs 1, 2 and 3) with a plurality of plates defining openings therebetween (openings between plurality of 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the rotor of Hoelzer with that of Reeves with a reasonable expectation of success so that the plurality of plates provide reinforcement to the rotor.
The combination of Hoelzer and Reeves discloses the rotor comprising a plurality of plates (plurality of 34), the body (Hoelzer body) being configured to attach to a plate of the plurality of plates (Hoelzer body configured to attach to plate of Reeves) of a rotor (Hoelzer 4) of the rotary machine (Hoelzer fig 3).
Hoelzer does not disclose a spring extending between the end portion and the body to bias the end portion toward a housing of the rotary machine to inhibit fluid flow between the housing and the plate, wherein the spring comprises a first undulating section extending to a first side of the end portion (left side) and a second undulating section extending to a second side, opposite the first side, of the end portion to respectively bias the first side and the second side of the end portion and cooperatively urge the end portion toward vertical alignment with the housing.
However, Kozacka teaches a spring (82, fig 5A), wherein the spring comprises a first undulating section (left section of 83) extending to a first side of the end portion (left side) and a second undulating section (right section of 83)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Hoelzer to comprise a spring as in Kozacka with a reasonable expectation of success so that the spring allows the seal assembly to absorb the mechanical stresses created by the reduction in distance between the rotor and the housing (Kozacka Col 9 Lines 32 – 34).
The combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses a spring (Kozacka 82, fig 5A) extending between the end portion and the body to bias the end portion toward a housing (Hoelzer housing) of the rotary machine (Kozacka fig 3) to inhibit fluid flow between the housing (Hoelzer 4) and the plate (Reeves 34), wherein the spring comprises a first undulating section (Kozacka - left section of 83) extending to a first side of the end portion (Kozacka - left side) and a second undulating section (Kozacka - right section of 83) extending to a second side (Kozacka - right side), opposite the first side (Kozacka - left side), of the end portion to respectively bias the first side and the second side of the end portion and cooperatively urge the end portion toward vertical alignment with the housing (Kozacka sections of 83 bias sides of Hoelzer 3 toward Hoelzer housing).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the end portion comprises an extension extending toward the housing (Hoelzer 3 with extension toward the housing).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the extension is oriented such that the first undulating section and the second undulating section urge the extension in an orthogonal orientation relative to the housing of the rotary machine (Kozacka sections of 83 urge the extension in an orthogonal orientation relative to the housing of the rotary machine of Hoelzer).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the first undulating section and the second undulating section of the spring are symmetrical to urge the end portion toward vertical alignment with the housing (Kozacka sections of 83 are symmetrical urging Hoelzer 3 against the housing).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the end portion and the spring are separate components coupled to one another (Hoelzer – 3 and Kozacka 83 are separate components coupled to one another).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hoelzer, Reeves and Kozacka discloses the flow restrictor, wherein the end portion comprises a first ramp surface extending at the first side (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ) and a second ramp surface (as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below ) extending at the second side to facilitate a smooth compression and decompression of the flow restrictor (ramp surfaces facilitate compression and decompression as seen in examiner annotated Hoelzer fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
776
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M. – 4 P.M.
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 Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. 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.
/L.S.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights