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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The Examiner would like to point out that terminology of “active sealing” (Page 5, lines 3-5), “apex”, “seal” or “sealing”, “fluid”, and “rotor-associated leakage path” (Page 5, lines 15-32) are defined in the specification. The term “about” is also defined on Page 6, lines 1-5. The Examiner has interpreted the terminology of “generally”, to mean that one looking at the apparatus would consider the direction to be in an axial or radial direction, where slight angular offset is due to manufacturing or tolerances.
Claim 44 recites “for use as one or both of a compressor or an expander”, which is considered as an intended use limitation, where the limitation only has to be capable of being used as a compressor or an expander.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33, line 12, recites “at least one of said fluid leakage path”, which should be in the plurality form. The Examiner recommends changing this to “at least one of said fluid leakage paths”.
Claim 33, line 13 recites “said path”, which is recommended to change to “said at least one of said fluid leakage paths”, for clarity of the claim.
Claim 33, line 15 recites “of the fluid leakage path”, which is recommended to change to “said at least one of said fluid leakage paths”, for clarity of which “fluid leakage path” is further being limited.
Claim 34 recites “said radially directed section”, which is recommended to change to “said radially extending section” for common terminology throughout the claim set. This way it is clear that the applicant is further limiting the same element.
Claim 35 recites “the auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths”, which is recommended to be changed to “the one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths” for consistency of the terminology.
Claim 35 recites “the main roto-associated leakage path”, which is a typo, and should be “the main rotor-associated leakage path”.
Claim 36 recites “over a rim the at least one circumferential radial projection”, where “of” should be added after “rim”.
Claim 38 recites “one or more of the circumferential radial projections”, which has added “one or more” in addition, the plurality of the element has changed from “a circumferential radial projection” (singular form) to now a plural form “one or more circumferential radial portions” (plural form). The applicant needs to review the entire claim set since in a plethora of locations, the plurality changes. Please maintain the singularity or plurality throughout the claim set or make it clear that the elements are the same. For example, the circumferential radial projection comprises of a plurality of circumferential radial projections.
Claim 40 recites “the auxiliary rotor-associated fluid leakage path”, which has changed in the plurality. Please change this limitation to “the one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths” for clarity and consistency of the elements terminology.
Claim 41 recites “the segment”, which is recommended to change to “the proximal segment” for clarity and consistency of the terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33-43 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 33 recites “of each two of the main rotors, the auxiliary rotor and the stator”, which is indefinite since it is unclear on exactly what the applicant wants to limit. The limitation changes plurality, where “main rotors” was previously presented in the singularity (i.e. “main rotor”), and “auxiliary rotor” (singular form) was previously presented as “one or more auxiliary rotors” (plural form). If the singularity of the “auxiliary rotor” is intended, please change the limitation to one of the one or more auxiliary rotors. What is meant by “of each two of”? This limitation is not explained in the disclosure and uses the same terminology. Is there more than one main rotor?
Claim 33, line 18 recites “the first part”, which lacks antecedent basis. In addition, “the first part” is believed to be “the stator”. Changing terminology in the claim for the same element makes the claim indefinite, since it is unclear if the applicant is trying to further limit a new element or is trying to further limit an element already presented in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first part” to “the stator”.
Claim 33 recites “an active sealing element”, which is indefinite, since it is unclear what the applicant means by adding the term “element” to “active sealing”. As discussed above in the claim interpretation, the applicant has defined what “active sealing” is on Page 5, lines 3-5, where “active sealing” is sealing that is “active once the apparatus is in operation and is a consequence of the flow of leaking fluid through the leakage path”. The “active sealing” does not use a mechanical “seal” to seal, and therefore, using the terminology of “element” in “an active sealing element”, results in confusion and lack of clarity of exactly what the applicant considers the ”active sealing element” to be. What “element” is in “an active sealing element”? The Examiner recommends changing “an active sealing element” to “active sealing.”
Claims 34-43 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 33.
Claim 34 recites “the main rotor-associated leakage path” and “said radially directed section”, which lack antecedent basis. Claim 33 recites “a radially extending section”. The Examiner recommends changing “said radially directed section” to “said radially extending section”. In addition, claim 33 recites “one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths” (axially extending) and “a stator-associated leakage path” (radially extending). A “main rotor-associated leakage path” has not been defined in the claim set. In addition, the Examiner is unsure if “a stator-associated leakage path “ is the same element as “a main rotor-associated leakage path”, since the terminology has changed. The Examiner recommends introducing “the main rotor-associated leakage path” and define what elements are forming this leakage path, since just using this terminology makes it unclear exactly what the applicant means by the element.
Claim 34 recites “a distal section”, which claim 33 had recited “two distal sections”, and therefore, it is unclear if “a distal section” is “one of the two distal sections”. Please utilize unique terminology in order to clarify if an element is further being limited or clarify if the limitation is directed to a specific element.
Claim 35 recites “the main rotor-associated leakage path”, that was introduced in claim 34 (see discussion above). “The main rotor-associated leakage path” is not disclosed in claim 33, and therefore, it is unclear what the applicant considers this element to be and what the boundaries of the element are. The Examiner believes that claim 35 should depend on claim 34 that introduces “the main rotor-associated leakage path”, and that claim 34 should define what applicant considers this element to be.
Claim 36 is confusing since there are elements that appear to be changing terminology and/or lack antecedent basis. Claim 36 recites “at least one of said projecting elements”, however, the previous claims never recited “projecting elements”. In addition, there are new leakage paths such as “the main rotor-associated fluid leakage path”, where the relationship to “the stator-associated leakage path” is not clear. Since the leakage path is between the stator and the main rotor for both the main rotor-associated fluid leakage path” and “the stator-associated leakage path”, it is unclear when the leakage path is “the stator-associated leakage path” versus “the main rotor-associated leakage path”. The claims also become confusing, since some “leakage paths” change from being axially to radially without making a connection that a ”generally axial direction” is now connected to a second section of the XXXX leakage path that is radially extending. In addition, how does the at least one auxiliary rotor projection, being a circumferential radial projection…defining a tortuous auxiliary fluid leakage path with sections thereof defined about the circumferential radial projections” relate to the one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths. Claim 33 already recited that the “one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths, each extending in a general axial direction (emphasis added)”. Furthermore, if a “leakage path” is a tortuous path, then it is unclear how the independent claim recites that the “leakage path” extends “in a general axial direction”, as well as, claim 36 recites “a tortuous distal section” that is “extending in a general radial direction”. The Examiner recommends defining different sections of a leakage path, such as a first distal section of the stator-associated leakage path, etc. in order to clarify that the leakage path has multiple different connecting sections, for example, a first section extends axially and a second section connects to the first section and extends radially from the first section.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 36.
Claim 37 recites “at least one of said main rotor projections”, which lacks antecedent basis. This limitation should be changed to “at least one of said circumferential radial projection” or “at least one of said projecting elements”. Please review the entire claim set and maintain the same terminology throughout the claim set.
Claim 39 recites “the main rotor’s annular member”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what the applicant considers the “annular member” to be. Is the applicant trying to limit the “annular rotor face”, which is claimed in claim 33? Claim 39 also recites “the axis”, which claim 33 recites “the main axis” and “auxiliary axes”, and therefore, the axis is indefinite. The Examiner recommends changing “the axis” to “the main axis”.
Claim 41 recites “the outer face” that lacks antecedent basis. In addition, claim 33 recites an “annular rotor face” and an “annular stator face”. Is “the outer face” one of these elements or a different “outer face”. Please clarify.
Claim 42 recites “one or more of the distal sections of the fluid leakage paths”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 33 recited “two distal sections”, so the claim is recommended to change to “one or more of the two distal sections”.
Closest Prior Art of Record
ADAMOVSKI (U.S. Patent 5,797,366) is the closest prior art of record.
ADAMOVSKI discloses: an apparatus comprising:
a main rotor (see Figures 1A that shows a main rotor with extension (20)) and a stator (10), the main rotor being rotatable against the stator about a main axis defining axial and radial direction (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 8 where the center of the rotor defines the main axis, which is along the shaft (30)), the main rotor and the stator having respective annular rotor face and annular stator face that face one another and define between them a confined annular space (12, 14) (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 8); and
one or more auxiliary rotors (44, 142, 242) fitted in said main rotor and rotatable about auxiliary axes parallel to said main axis (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 8), the rotations being synchronized and function jointly to compress, expand or pump a fluid within the confined annular space formed between the main rotor and the stator (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 8, see Abstract).
The claim limitation directed to the fluid leakage paths that are formed between congruent opposite faces of each two of the main rotors, the auxiliary rotor and the stator is not clear exactly what is meant by this limitation (see rejections and objections above). It is noted that there are inherent fluid leakage paths between the rotating components (i.e. the main rotors, the auxiliary rotor) and stationary component (i.e. the stator) since there has to be clearance or a gap in order for the rotating components to rotate.
ADAMOVSKI discloses using a variety of seals such as ring seal (26, 58), the labyrinth seal (90), as well as, channels that run thru the ring seal (see Figure 2C that shows a radial channel (82) that connects to a variety of channels.
ADAMOVSKI does not disclose a physical configuration of at least one of said fluid leakage path is configured with an active sealing element obstructing flow of fluid through said path upon rotation, the active sealing element comprises:
an interrupted leakage path in which a proximal section of the fluid leakage path extending from within the confined annular space branches into two distal sections including:
(i) one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths, each extending in a general axial direction and formed between one of the auxiliary rotors and congruent surfaces of the first part, and
(ii) a generally radially extending section of a stator-associated leakage path formed between a member of said stator and congruent surfaces of said main rotor.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art each shows an apparatus with a main rotor, a stator, and one or more auxiliary rotors: CONNERS (U.S. Patent Publication US 2006/0196464A1), HOLDEN (U.S. Patent Publication US 2009/0142211 A1), MCDANIEL *U.S. Patent 9,664,048 B2), JOHNSON (U.S. Patent 1,766,519), and PERKINS (U.S. Patent 2,152,564). These references show the state of the art and they also do not disclose a physical configuration of at least one of said fluid leakage path is configured with an active sealing element obstructing flow of fluid through said path upon rotation, the active sealing element comprises: an interrupted leakage path in which a proximal section of the fluid leakage path extending from within the confined annular space branches into two distal sections including: (i) one or more auxiliary rotor-associated leakage paths, each extending in a general axial direction and formed between one of the auxiliary rotors and congruent surfaces of the first part, and (ii) a generally radially extending section of a stator-associated leakage path formed between a member of said stator and congruent surfaces of said main rotor.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights