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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2-9 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 2 recites “0.43 < R6max/D1 < 0.57”, however, R6max has not been introduced and/or defined in claim 2 or claim 1, therefore, claim 2 is rendered indefinite.
Claims 3-9 depend from claim 2 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 5 recites “cross-sections of inner contours of the inlet section and the outlet section” and depends from claim 4 which recites “cross-sections of inner contours of the gas suction pipe at least on the inlet section”. As noted above, cross-sections of inner contours of the inlet section have already been introduced in claim 4, therefore, it is not clear if cross-sections of inner contours of the inlet section as recited in claim 5 refer to additional and different cross-sections of inner contours of the inlet section or to the same ones recited in claim 4.
Claims 6-9 depend from claim 5 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 6 recites “a cross-section of an inner contour of the transition section” and includes the limitations of claim 4 which recites “cross-sections of inner contours of the gas suction pipe at least on the inlet section and the transition section”. As noted above, cross-sections of inner contours of the transition section have already been introduced in claim 4, therefore, it is not clear if cross-sections of inner contours of the transition section as recited in claim 6 refer to additional and different cross-sections of inner contours of the transition section or to the same ones recited in claim 4.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 9 recites “a major axis radius R11min and a minor axis radius R12min of the first cross-section”; as noted, the claim recites major axis but the variable includes a “min” subscript. Furthermore, there is an inconsistency between the numbers used as subscripts, note 11 and 12 being used.
Claim 9 further recites “a minor axis radius R12min of the second cross-section”; however, R12min has been already recited in the claim when referring to a minor axis radius R12min of the first cross-section.
Claim 9 further recites “… R12max / D11 … R13max / D11 … R14max / D11 … R15max / D11 …”, however, D11 has not been introduced and/or defined in claim 9 or any of the claims from which claim 9 depends from, therefore, claim 9 is rendered indefinite.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iancu et al – hereafter Iancu – (US 20180274831 A1; also US 11,022,355 B2) in view of Murayama et al – hereafter Murayama – (JP 2001280311 A).
Regarding claim 1, Iancu teaches a gas suction pipe of a centrifugal compressor (Fig.1/2/8/9), wherein the centrifugal compressor (102) comprises a gas suction port (defined by 208), the gas suction port comprises a central axis (Fig.2), the gas suction pipe is configured to introduce a fluid from an upstream component (108) into the centrifugal compressor and direct the fluid through the gas suction pipe in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the gas suction port (Fig.1), wherein the gas suction pipe comprises:
a middle cross-section, wherein the central axis of the gas suction port of the centrifugal compressor is located on the middle cross-section, and the gas suction pipe has a shape that is symmetrical with respect to the middle cross-section (Fig.1/2/8/9, 112);
a downstream interface connected to the centrifugal compressor, wherein an inner contour of the downstream interface is circular (Fig.2, defined by 208/210/212/214), and the downstream interface is connected to the gas suction port (Fig.1); and
an upstream interface (Fig.2, defined by 206) connected to the upstream component (Fig.1).
Iancu does not explicitly teach an inner contour of the upstream interface comprises a first direction maximum spanning size D1 located on the middle cross-section, and comprises a second direction maximum spanning size D2 perpendicular to the middle cross-section, wherein the first direction maximum spanning size D1 is greater than the second direction maximum spanning size D2.
Murayama teaches a gas suction pipe (Fig.1) including an upstream interface (11) and a downstream interface (12); the downstream interface being circular (Fig.1(a)) and the upstream interface being elliptical (machine translation ¶7). Murayama further teaches an inner contour of the upstream interface comprises a first direction maximum spanning size D1 located on a middle cross-section (Fig.1(b)), and comprises a second direction maximum spanning size D2 perpendicular to the middle cross-section (Fig.1(a)), wherein the first direction maximum spanning size D1 is greater than the second direction maximum spanning size D2 (Fig.1(a)/(b)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas suction pipe of Iancu by having an inner contour of the upstream interface comprises a first direction maximum spanning size D1 located on the middle cross-section, and comprises a second direction maximum spanning size D2 perpendicular to the middle cross-section, wherein the first direction maximum spanning size D1 is greater than the second direction maximum spanning size D2 based on the teachings of Murayama because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (gas suction pipe of Iancu) for another (gas suction pipe of Murayama) to obtain predictable results (transport gas from an upstream component to a downstream component).
Regarding claim 10, Iancu and Murayama further teach a centrifugal compressor (Iancu Fig.1, 102), wherein the centrifugal compressor comprises the gas suction pipe of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the upstream component is cylindrical with an axis parallel to the central axis of the gas suction port, and the upstream component comprises a diameter D0, wherein the first direction maximum spanning size D1 and the second direction maximum spanning size D2 of the inner contour of the upstream interface satisfy: 0.55 < D1/D0 < 0.7, D2 < 0.5 x D1, and wherein a radius R6 of the inner contour of the downstream interface satisfies: 0.43 < R6max/D1 < 0.57 (as in the context of claim 2).
None of the cited prior art references (Iancu or Murayama) disclose the claim limitations above.
GB 2396621 A discloses improvements in elbows for pipes including various inner contours with elliptical, and consequently first and second direction maximum spanning sizes (Fig.5); however, both the upstream and downstream interfaces have similar circular cross-sections (Fig.5, ω4=ω0).
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745