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 not contain legal phraseology such as “comprising” or “wherein”. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 13 and 14 the limitation “wherein a motor/generator unit is coupled or couplable to the at least one screw rotor” should be “wherein a motor/generator unit is coupled to the at least one screw rotor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 16 “the high pressure end face” should be “a high pressure end face”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 after “screw rotor,” “said pin section” should be inserted before “extending beyond”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “the bearing pin section” should be “a bearing pin section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “the screw rotor axis” should be “an axis of the screw rotor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “the screw rotors provided” should be “the at least one screw rotor is provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: the “lubricant supply unit” in claim 1 (the lubricant supply unit is disclosed as the structure and passages 222, 224, see the discussion in [0049], [0054] & [0055], for example) and the “support units” of claim 25 (see [0133] & [0134]).
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
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 3, 6-12, 14-17, 21 and 22 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 3 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth: “wherein said circular border line is arranged radially outward from said inner most diameter of said high pressure end face at maximum at a radially innermost root of the screw contour of at least one of said screw rotor”. The claim is confusing because it is unclear which of the features the “at maximum” limitation is intended to further limit. In particular it is unclear if a maximum of the “circular borderline”, “the inner most diameter of said high pressure end face” or “the innermost root” is being referred to.
In each of claims 6-12 and 14-17 include the limitation “said at least one opening”. All of these claims depend from claim 1 which does not provide any antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 5 sets forth “at least one supply opening” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if antecedent basis should be provided for the limitation in claim 1, if claims 6-12 and 14-17 should be dependent upon claim 5, or something else.
The term “close” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant considers “close” to represent. This could be considered as “adjacent” within a particular distance, between the root and the circular borderline, or some other measure.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said inner most diameter”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. It is noted that claims 2-4 mention an “innermost diameter” therefore the confusion with regards to this limitation is also directed to whether claim 12 should be dependent upon another claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the high-pressure opening" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to make reference to a discharge from or a fluid connection to the machine or to an opening from the lubricant supply unit, i.e., the passage 266 or 268.
Each of claims 14, 15 and 16 are vague and indefinite since it is unclear what the reference frame is for judging “opposite to” in each instance. For example, the reference frame in each instance could be considered as the shaft rotary axis, as the plane defined by the oil film, or as the opposite longitudinal ends of the bore. “Opposite to” could also be considered as across from or facing. Therefore, it is unclear how to determine when something is opposite to.
Claims 21 and 22 are vague and indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the lubricant accumulation” in line 1. Claim 1 does not mention the term but claim 20 mentions “an accumulation of lubricant”. It is unclear if this claim 21 was intended to be dependent upon claim 1 or possibly claim 20. Claim 22 is similarly confusing and additionally could have been intended to be dependent on claim 21.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 17, 19, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Moody Jr. et al (USPN 3,811,805, hereafter Moody).
With regards to claim 1, Moody discloses a machine (see Fig. 1) for expanding or compressing (see Title) compressible media, comprising a machine casing (20, 22, 24, 28), at least one screw rotor (16,18), which is arranged in a screw rotor bore (the inside surface of 24) in the machine casing and which extends between a low pressure side (the lower side of Fig. 1) and a high pressure side (the upper side of Fig. 1) of the screw rotor bore and which cooperates with the compressible medium, wherein by rotating about a screw rotor axis, the at least one screw rotor conveys the substantially gaseous medium either from the low pressure side to the high pressure side by compressing it (see title), or from the high pressure side to the low pressure side by expanding it, wherein said at least one screw rotor is mounted on both sides in the machine casing by way of a respective bearing set (40 in the upper plate 22 and the similar sleeve bearing around the shaft in plate 28), wherein each bearing set has at least one radial acting bearing (i.e., the bearings 40 in the upper plate 22 and the similar sleeve bearing around the shaft in plate 28) and at least one of the bearing sets has at least one axially acting bearing (see the balance piston 74 and the chamber 64 that is supplied high pressure oil to bias the piston 74 upwards, thus broadly being a hydrodynamic axial bearing) that supports the at least one screw rotor (16) to counter an axial displacing movement of said screw rotor from its operating position in the direction of the low pressure side (by biasing the piston 74 upwards in Fig. 1 it counters axial movement in the direction of the low pressure side), wherein a motor/generator unit (30/32) is coupled (via key 34) to the at least one screw rotor, wherein the at least one screw rotor is axially supported by a lubricant support film (labeled in the annotated figure below and note the discussion of col. 4 at lines 63-66) provided between an end wall surface (134; labeled in the annotated figure) limiting said screw rotor bore and the high pressure end face (146; labeled in the annotated figure) of said at least one screw rotor in order to prevent the high pressure end face from making contact to the end wall surface (injecting high pressure in between the high pressure end face of the rotor and the end wall will bias the rotor to prevent contact as claimed), and wherein the lubricant support film is maintained between said high pressure end face and said end wall surface by a lubricant supply unit (labeled in the annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein the lubricant support film is maintained by supplying lubricant to a support area (represented by the dashed line labeled in annotated Fig. 2 and Support Area 1) which is arranged between said high pressure end face of said respective screw rotor and said end wall surface and between an innermost diameter (labeled in the annotated figure above) of the high pressure end face and a radially outwardly arranged circular border line (labeled in the annotated figure above).
With regards to claim 3, as understood, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 2, wherein said circular border line (labeled in annotated Figs. 2 & 3) is arranged radially outward from said inner most diameter (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said high pressure end face at maximum at a radially innermost root (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of the screw contour of at least one of said screw rotor.
With regards to claim 4, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 2, wherein said innermost diameter (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said high pressure end face is defined by an outer diameter of a pin section (38; labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said at least one screw rotor, said pin section extending beyond said high pressure end face (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 above).
With regards to claim 5, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said lubricant support film (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) within said support area is maintained by a supply of lubricant to said support area through at least one supply opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said lubricant supply unit.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said lubricant supply unit is arranged in the high-pressure end face (labeled in annotated Fig. 3) of said at least one screw rotor.
With regards to claim 8, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening is facing the support area (clearly shown in Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 9, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening extends (labeled in annotated Fig. 3 above) to an area close to said circular border line.
With regards to claim 10, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening is arranged partially outside said support area (Support Area 2 labeled in annotated Fig. 3) adjacent to or overlapping (the extended supply opening in Fig. 3 overlaps with circular border line 2 in annotated Fig. 3) with said circular border line.
With regards to claim 11, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening has a longitudinal shape (see Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 12, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least one supply opening extends between (see the extended supply opening label in annotated Fig. 3) said circular border line (labeled in the annotated Fig. 3 as “circular border line”) and said inner most diameter (labeled in annotated Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 13, as understood, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein lubricant is supplied to said lubricant support film in the support area at least at a pressure corresponding to the high pressure (the pressure supplied from the oil pump 80, 82 in Fig. 1) at the high pressure opening (labeled in the annotated Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 17, as understood, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said lubricant supply unit comprises a channel (148 in Fig. 2) extending to said at least one supply opening.
With regards to claim 19, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said channel (148) extends through said at least one screw rotor (16) to the supply opening arranged in said high pressure end face (the top face of Figs. 1 & 2) of said at least one screw rotor.
With regards to claim 20, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said lubricant supply unit comprises a lubricant reservoir (chamber 64) comprising an accumulation of lubricant therein and wherein said lubricant accumulation being connected (via axial passages 68 and 66) to said channel (148) extending to said lubricant supply opening.
With regards to claim 24, Moody discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said lubricant supply unit comprises a lubricant pump (gear pump 80,82 that supplies oil to the accumulator 66, and passages 68, 66 to the channel 148).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody in view of McHugh (USPN 4,438,339).
With regards to claim 7, as set forth above Moody discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that said at least one supply opening of said lubricant supply unit is arranged in the end wall surface.
McHugh discloses a similar rotary fluid machine (see Fig. 3) that includes an axial thrust bearing (46) in the form of a hydrodynamic thrust bearing (see Fig. 4) having supply openings (62, 63) of a lubricant supply unit (58, 62, 60, 63) arranged in end wall surfaces (the opposite side walls of the casing 50).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either substitute or else add supply openings arranged in the end wall surface defining the lubricant support film, as taught by McHugh, instead of, or in addition to, the rotor supply openings of Moody since rotor provided and end wall provided supply openings are recognized as equivalence for their use in the hydrodynamic thrust bearing art and selection of either of these known equivalents to axial support the rotary structure would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regards to claim 18, McHugh discloses the passages 62 on each side of the shaft/pin extending from the hydrodynamic thrust bearing 46 and receiving oil from the pump 58. The passages 62 are channels that extend through said machine casing to the at least one supply opening (the inner end of the channels opening to the chamber 54) arranged in said respective end wall surface.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 21-23, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody in view of McHugh as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, and further in view of Butterworth (USPN 4,780,061).
With regards to claims 21-23, Moody in view of McHugh disclose the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above but does not disclose wherein (re Cl. 21) said lubricant accumulation is exposed to the high pressure of the gaseous medium at the high pressure opening; wherein (re Cl. 22) a lubricant accumulation is arranged in a lubricant separator; and wherein (re Cl. 23) said lubricant separator is arranged in said machine casing.
Butterworth discloses a similar motor driven screw (26) machine having a casing (20, 16, 14, 12) having bearing arrangements (72) and wherein (re Cl. 21) a lubricant accumulation (34) is exposed to the high pressure (via the gas inside separator 12 and 30) of the gaseous medium at the high pressure opening (28); wherein (re Cl. 22) a lubricant accumulation (34) is arranged in a lubricant separator; and wherein (re Cl. 23) said lubricant separator is arranged in said machine casing (inside casing member 12).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the screw machine as taught by Butterworth and substitute an lubrication system including the separator and the accumulation within the casing to allow the high-pressure discharge gas to power the circulation of the oil through the closed lubrication circuit (48, 56, 70, 74, 76; see fig. 3) to supply the lubricant for the bearings. Thus eliminating the need for the mechanically driven oil pump 80, 82 of Moody and simplifying the overall structure while eliminating costly pump parts. Further, by locating the separator, accumulator and the lubrication circuit within the casing a self-contained and protected unit is created with no external connections (such as via lower plate 90 of Moody). Creating a more durable long lasting structure.
With regards to claims 14-16, Moody does not specifically indicate or disclose the position of the high-pressure opening. In the structure made obvious by the combination of Moody, McHugh and Butterworth the end wall such as taught by Butterworth has a high-pressure opening 28 in the end wall and this end wall when combined with McHugh would include multiple supply channels and openings, such as 62, on each side of the shaft/bearing pin section. This combination would result in supply openings having placement as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 of Butterworth as shown below. With regards to claims 14 and 16, the Supply Opening 62 of the annotated drawing would be on the opposite side to the high-pressure opening and opposite side of the pin relative to the high-pressure opening. With regards to claim 15 the Supply Opening 62 is also on the opposite side of the bore from the high-pressure opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
599
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody in view of Sjholm et al (USPN 5,246,357).
With regards to claim 25, as set forth above Moody discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the screw rotor is provided with support units acting on the respective pin section in directions away from the high-pressure side towards the low-pressure side.
Sjholm et al disclose a similar screw machine having a screw rotor 86 that is provided with support units (labeled in the annotated drawings below) acting on the respective pin section in directions away from the high-pressure side towards the low-pressure side.
PNG
media_image4.png
521
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a support unit, as taught by Sjholm et al to the discharge end of the screw rotor pin in order to provide additional support and preload so that the axial placement of the rotor relative to the end wall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eriksson et al, Schibbye and Grinpress disclose lubrication systems for screw machines.
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
April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights