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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “one or more compressors” in line 8 and 9. For clarity of the claim, they should be recited as “ the one or more compressors” since it is previously recited.
Claim 8 recites “the one or more stages” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a one or more stages” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the one or more connections lines” in line 6. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “one or more connection lines” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 10 recites “the other end” in line 2-3 and 4. For clarity of the claim, they should be recited as “an other end” since it is the first recitation of the limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sassanelli et al. US 20130156543.
Regarding claim 1, Sassanelli discloses: A hybrid compressor-pump (Fig 1 and 2), comprising:
a gearbox (18);
a central gear (20) within the gearbox and configured to be driven by a driving system (59);
one or more pumps (14) configured to attach to the gearbox and be driven by the central gear (14 attached to 18 and driven by 20); and
one or more compressors (30-1 to 30-6)configured to attach to the gearbox and be driven by the central gear (30-1 to 30-6 is attached to 18 and driven by 20);
wherein each of the one or more pumps and one or more compressors each comprise one or more connection points such that the one or more pumps and one or more compressors can be arranged in a variety of orders of operations for treating a process fluid (Fig 1 and 2; Par 33-34: 30-1 to 30-6 and 14 have connection points to 18).
Regarding claim 2, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein the central gear comprises a connection to a driving system (Fig 2: 59 is connected to 20).
Regarding claim 3, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more compressors comprises an impeller configured to be driven by the central gear (Fig 2; Par 22: multiple impellers connected to 20).
Regarding claim 8, Sassanelli discloses: A gearbox (Fig 1 and 2: 18) for a hybrid compressor-pump, comprising:
a central gear (20) configured to be driven by a driving system (59);
one or more shafts (all 14, 30-1, 30-6 have shafts 24-1) configured to be driven by the central gear (all 14, 30-1, 30-6 have shafts 24-1 connected to 20),
each of the one or more shafts configured to drive a first of the one or more stages at one end and a second of the one or more stages at a second end (Fig 2: 20 drives 22 which is connected to 24-1 that drives 30-1 and 30-2);
wherein the one or more connections lines allow the one or more stages to be configured in a variety of orders of operation to treat the process fluid (Fig 1 and 2; Par 33-34: 30-1 to 30-6 and 14 have connection points to 18).
Regarding claim 9, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein the one or more stages comprises one or more pump stages and one or more compression stages (Fig 1 and 2: 30-1 to 30-6).
Regarding claim 13, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein any compressor stage comprising the one or more stages comprises an impeller driven by one of the one or more shafts (Fig 2; Par 22: multiple impellers connected to 20).
Regarding claim 15, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein each compressor stage comprising the one or more stages comprises a suction inlet (Fig 1 and 2: 30-1 to 30-6 all have inlets).
Regarding claim 17, Sassanelli discloses: A method of manufacturing a hybrid compressor-pump for a fluid treatment system (Fig 1 and 2), comprising:
providing a central gear (20) configured to be driven by a driving system (59);
coupling one or more shafts to an outer edge of the central gear (all 14, 30-1, 30-6 have shafts 24-1 connected to 20),
the one or more shafts configured to be driven by the central gear and to drive one of one or more stages of the fluid treatment system at a first end and to drive another of the one or more stages at a second end (Fig 2: 20 drives 22 which is connected to 24-1 that drives 30-1 and 30-2);
wherein the one or more stages can be coupled in a variety of orders of operation for treating a process fluid (Fig 1 and 2; Par 33-34: 30-1 to 30-6 and 14 have connection points to 18).
Regarding claim 19, Sassanelli discloses:
coupling the one or more stages to the one or more shafts (Fig 1 and 2: 30-1 to 30-6 all coupled to shafts such as 24-1).
Regarding claim 20, Sassanelli discloses:
coupling an impeller to the one or more shafts for each compressor stage comprising the one or more stages (Fig 2; Par 22: multiple impellers connected to 20 through shafts such as 24-1).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassanelli et al. US 20130156543 in view of Oda US 20190376409.
Regarding claim 4, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein at least one of the one or more compressors comprises one or more variable inlet guide vanes.
From the same field of endeavor, Oda teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more compressors comprises one or more variable inlet guide vanes (Fig 1: 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the compressors of Sassanelli to have inlet guide vanes as taught by Oda to allow for the adjustment of the flow rate within the compressor to broaden the operation range of the compressor for more uses (Par 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassanelli et al. US 20130156543 in view of Bini et al. US 20260117796
Regarding claim 5, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein at least one of the one or more compressors comprises one or more diffuser guide vanes.
From the same field of endeavor, Bibi teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more compressors comprises one or more diffuser guide vanes (Fig 4: 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the compressors of Sassanelli to have diffuser guide vanes as taught by Bini to improve the fluid dynamic efficiency (Par 33).
Claims 6-7, 10-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassanelli et al. US 20130156543.
Regarding claim 6, Sassanelli discloses:
wherein the one or more pumps comprises one pump (Fig 2: 14)
However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
the one or more compressors comprises three compressors.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more compressors comprises three compressors if through routine experimentation the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
Regarding claim 7, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more pumps comprises two pump and the one or more compressors comprises two compressors.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more pumps comprises two pump and the one or more compressors comprises two compressors if through routine experimentation the two pumps and the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
Regarding claim 10, Sassanelli discloses:
one pump stage (Fig 2: 14)
However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more stages comprise three compressor stages.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more compressors comprises three compressors if through routine experimentation the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
The combination would result in: wherein a first of the one or more shafts is configured to drive the one pump stage at one end and one of the compression stages at the other end; and wherein a second of the one or more shafts is configured to drive a second of the compression stages at one end and the third compression stage at the other end.
Regarding claim 11, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more stages comprises six or more stages and the one or more shafts comprises three or more shafts.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more pumps comprises two pump and the one or more compressors comprises two compressors if through routine experimentation the two pumps and the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
Regarding claim 12, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more stages comprises less than six stages.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more pumps comprises two pump and the one or more compressors comprises two compressors if through routine experimentation the two pumps and the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
Regarding claim 16, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more stages comprises two pump stages and two compression stages.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more pumps comprises two pump and the one or more compressors comprises two compressors if through routine experimentation the two pumps and the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
Regarding claim 18, Sassanelli discloses:
one pump stage (Fig 2: 14)
However, Sassanelli is silent as to:
wherein the one or more stages comprise three compressor stages.
However, Sassanelli does disclose that varying the amount of compressors and pumps based on the implemented application (Par 33). Absent some criticality or unexpected results, the courts have held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the one or more compressors comprises three compressors if through routine experimentation the three compressors was determined to produce the optimum results for a given application.
The combination would result in: wherein the method further comprises coupling two compressor stages to one of the one or more shafts and coupling a third compressor stage and the pump stage to another of the one or more shafts.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassanelli et al. US 20130156543 in view of Janitschke US 20170306968.
Regarding claim 14, Sassanelli discloses all of the above limitations. However Sassanelli is silent as to:
a lubricant pump configured to supply lubricant to the central gear.
From the same field of endeavor, Janitschke teaches:
a lubricant pump configured to supply lubricant to the central gear (Fig 1: 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gear system of Sassanelli to have lubricant pump as taught by Janitschke to allow for the lubricant of working parts in the system (Par 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stauff US 20240280112, Kim US 20230175413, Miyata et al. US 20230175517 Angel et al. US 20220145768, Andrews et al. US 20170292525, Kabir et al. US 20070166158, and Quetel et al. Us 20030123972 discloses a similar gear and pump system as applicant. Shin et al. US 20140219775 discloses a multi stage compressor on a gear drive system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights