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 .
Claim interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a movement restricting portion” in claim 2. Based on the specification, the movement restricting portion 522 restricts the movement of the high-pressure bundle 51 approaching the steam turbine 2 in the axial direction Da, and has a plate shape extending so as to be orthogonal to the axial direction Da ([0022]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that a position of the high-pressure bundle in the axial direction overlaps a position of the low-pressure casing in the axial direction. Therefore, according to claim 1, the overlap is in the axial direction. However, claim 1 also recites that the “low-pressure compressor disposed on an opposite side of the driving machine with the high- pressure compressor interposed therebetween in an axial direction in which the axis extends and driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft.” Based on this limitation, the low-pressure and high-pressure compressors are arranged in the axial direction, which means they do not overlap in the axial direction. Hence, there is a conflict in claim 1 with regard to the arrangement of the low-pressure and high-pressure compressors because they are recited to be arranged nest to each other in the axial direction and also overlap each other in the axial direction. The same issue also exists in claim 3. The examiner interprets that the overlap is in the radial direction. This interpretation is based on the specification and the drawings, and also based on the recitations of claim 5 in with the surfaces coincide in the vertical direction.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the axial line" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claims 1 and 3, Masuda et al. (US 10077783), referred to hereinafter as Masuda discloses a compressor system (Fig. 9), and a bundle movement method for a compressor system (Fig. 9), the compressor system comprising: a driving machine (70) including a drive shaft that rotates around an axis; a high-pressure compressor (71) driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft and configured to compress a fluid; and a sea-pressure compressor (10) disposed in an axial direction in which the axis extends and driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft, wherein the high-pressure compressor includes a high-pressure bundle including a high-pressure rotor shaft that rotates around the axis together with the drive shaft and a plurality of high-pressure impellers, and a high-pressure casing configured to accommodate the high-pressure bundle and formed in a tubular shape centered on the axis (Fig. 9), the sea-pressure compressor includes a bundle including a rotor shaft that rotates around the axis together with the drive shaft and the high-pressure rotor shaft and a plurality of impellers, and a casing configured to accommodate the bundle and formed in a tubular shape centered on the axis (Fig. 9), but doesn’t disclose that the sea-pressure compressor is a low-pressure compressor disposed on an opposite side of the driving machine with the high- pressure compressor interposed therebetween in an axial direction in which the axis extends and driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft, and that when viewed from the axial direction, a minimum inside diameter of the low-pressure casing is larger than a maximum outside diameter of the high-pressure bundle, and the high-pressure bundle is movable, and a position of the high-pressure bundle in the axial direction overlaps a position of the low-pressure casing in the axial direction in a state in which the low-pressure casing is fixed on a base plate, the bundle movement method comprising: moving the high-pressure bundle in the inside of the low-pressure casing. Oishi et al. (US 11788546), referred to hereinafter as Oishi discloses a compressor system, and a bundle movement method for a compressor system (Fig. 1, 5), the compressor system comprising: a driving machine (3) including a drive shaft that rotates around an axis (Fig. 1, 5); a high-pressure compressor (5) driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft and configured to compress a fluid; and a low-pressure compressor (4) disposed in an axial direction in which the axis extends and driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft, wherein the high-pressure compressor includes a high-pressure bundle including a high-pressure rotor shaft that rotates around the axis together with the drive shaft and a plurality of high-pressure impellers, and a high-pressure casing configured to accommodate the high-pressure bundle and formed in a tubular shape centered on the axis (Fig. 1, 5), the low-pressure compressor includes a low-pressure bundle including a low-pressure rotor shaft that rotates around the axis together with the drive shaft and the high-pressure rotor shaft and a plurality of low-pressure impellers, and a low-pressure casing configured to accommodate the low-pressure bundle and formed in a tubular shape centered on the axis (Fig. 1, 5), but doesn’t disclose that the low-pressure compressor is disposed on an opposite side of the driving machine with the high- pressure compressor interposed therebetween in an axial direction in which the axis extends and driven by transmission of rotation of the drive shaft, and that when viewed from the axial direction, a minimum inside diameter of the low-pressure casing is larger than a maximum outside diameter of the high-pressure bundle, and the high-pressure bundle is movable, and a position of the high-pressure bundle in the axial direction overlaps a position of the low-pressure casing in the axial direction in a state in which the low-pressure casing is fixed on a base plate, the bundle movement method comprising: moving the high-pressure bundle in the inside of the low-pressure casing. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction. Claims 2 and 4-6 depend from claims 1 and 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar compressor systems such as US 10309407.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights