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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 from Species Set 1, Species 2 from Species Set 2, and Species 1 from Species Set 3, which encompass claims 1-18, in the reply filed on April 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-8 and 10-18 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.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: The claims are replete with vague and indefinite language, examples of which are present below. The applicant is encouraged to review the claims for additional unclear language.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in lines 8 and 9 it is unclear which elements are being compared to one another. As presented the current evaluation indicator and the preset condition could be compared or the current evaluation indicator and the previous evaluation indicator could be compared. Claim 10 is similarly confusing at line 8 and 9. Further, claim 2 at lines 3 and 4 includes a similar unclear with regards to the comparison phrase.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in line 13 the limitation relating to determining if the “adjustment flag is the present flag” is confusing. In particular it is unclear if the values of the flags are being compared or if the actual flags have been combined or are the same or are equal. For purposes of examination it will be considered that values are being compared. Claim 10 is similarly confusing at line 13. Claim 1 is also confusing at lines 14 and 15 because the directions of the flags are discussed. As noted above it is believed that the flags are values and therefore it is unclear how the directions are related to the value of the flags. Claim 10 is similarly confusing.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it makes reference to “the determination and adjustment” in lines 16 and 17. It is noted that there are more than one determination and more than one adjustment set forth in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear which determinations and adjustments are being referenced. Claim 10 is similarly confusing.
In claim 1 line 16 is unclear because the step of “updating the evaluation indicator” is not properly defined and thus it is unclear how to update. Claim 10 is similarly confusing.
Claim 2 is vague and indefinite because it makes reference to “the determination and adjustment” in line 2. It is noted that there are more than one determination and more than one adjustment set forth in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear which determinations and adjustments are being referenced.
Claim 2 is vague and indefinite because at line 6 and 7 the step of “updating the same-direction adjustment count” is unclear. It is unknown if this means a counter is incremented, the values are set equal or something else. Because the step of “updating” is not properly defined it is unclear how to update. The “update…” step discussed at claim 11 line 5 is similarly confusing.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meyer et al (USPN 5,950,443).
Meyer et al disclose a compressor (24), comprising: a body (inherent), having an intake end (see arrow at 164) and a discharge end (146) relative to the intake end; a screw compression group (see col. 1 line 13), disposed in the body; a volume adjusting group (124 of Fig. 3), disposed in the body and corresponding to the screw compression group; a driving group (inherently required and shown schematically in Fig. 7 of USPN 5,632,154 which is incorporated by reference), coupled to the volume adjusting group and used to drive the volume adjusting group to adjust a volume ratio (i.e. the capacity control adjust the volume ratio); and a control module (see Fig. 2), electrically connected to the driving group and used to detect a plurality of operation statuses (conditions 1 & 2 of Fig. 2) of a preceding time sequence and a following time sequence and record the same as a plurality of corresponding evaluation indicators (the outputs of comparators 106 & 114), wherein based on a comparison result of the plurality of evaluation indicators of the preceding time sequence and the following time sequence (via the PID control, I (integral) and D (derivative) control are time based controls), the control module controls the driving group (via the output from PID 122) to drive the volume adjusting group to adjust the volume ratio (at 124).
Due to the degree of indefiniteness of claims 1-8 and claims 10-18 the scope and meaning of the method and control limitations provided in these claims cannot be properly determined to a degree speculation that would be required. As noted in MPEP 2173.06 II: “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore a determination of patentability of claims 1-8 and 10-18 has not been provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sibik et al, Jayanth et al and Centers et al disclose compressor volume control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights