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 .
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.
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 18/069,687, filed December 21st, 2022, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. This application, while filed as a divisional of prior application no. 18/069,687, appears to actually be a continuation of the prior application. In this instance, this application does not claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, but instead recites common subject matter already recited and examined in the prior application. Accordingly, this application appears to constitute a continuation application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, subspecies of Figs. 1-3, in the reply filed on July 1st, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-21 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 1st, 2026.
Claims 1-6 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 & 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 should read “face of the lobe and is tangent”
Claim 6, line 2 should read “pairs of lobes
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by any one of Guibert US 2,845,031 to Guibert or JP 59-176487A to Obata (attached herein).
In regards to Claim 1, Guibert (as shown in Figs. 1-5) or Obata (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-8) discloses:
A rotor pack (13/14 in Guibert; 1/2 in Obata) for a supercharger (this is an intended use limitation that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim), the rotor pack comprising: a first rotor (13 in Guibert; 1 in Obata) and a second rotor (14 in Guibert; 2 in Obata) that include meshed lobes (15-19 & 20-24; col. 2, lines 10-18 & Fig. 1 in Guibert; A-D & E-G; Fig. 3 in Obata); a shaft (6, 7 in Guibert; not numbered in Obata, but clearly seen in Figs. 1-3) supporting each of the first rotor and the second rotor within an enclosing case; and a relief zone (31, 33 - see col. 2, lines 71- 72 to col. 3, lines 1-3 in Guibert; 4, 5 - see abstract and pages 1-2, para. [0001] in Obata) disposed at an intake airflow side (i.e. the flat end faces seen in Fig. 1 of Guibert; the flat end faces seen in Figs. 3-5 of Obata) of each lobe.
In regards to claim 2, Guibert or Obata discloses wherein the relief zone (31, 33 in Guibert; 4, 5 in Obata) is configured to allow additional airflow to enter the rotor pack. Note that the limitation "is configured to allow additional airflow to enter the rotor pack" is considered functional language. The use of the functional language only requires that the apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Guibert or Obata is capable of having the additional fluid/air flow into the first and second rotors, the prior art meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP §2114)).
In regards to claim 3, Guibert or Obata discloses wherein the relief zone (31, 33 in Guibert; 4, 5 in Obata) comprises a curved surface that includes a line of curvature (not numbered; however, clearly seen in Figs. 1 and 3 in Guibert and Figs. 3-5 in Obata).
In regards to claim 4, Guibert or Obata discloses wherein the line of curvature is tangent to a flat end face (i.e. the faces seen in Fig. 1 of Guibert; the faces seen in Figs. 3-5 of Obata) of the lobes and is tangent to a trailing surface of the lobe (15-19; 20-24 and Figs. 1 and 3 in Guibert; A-D; E-G and Figs. 3-5 in Obata).
In regards to claim 5, Guibert or Obata discloses wherein the relief zone (31, 33 in Guibert; 4, 5 in Obata) extends from a termination of a radial blend prior to a compression zone (34, 35 in Figs. 1 and 3 in Guibert; not numbered; however, the screw compressor obviously has a compression zone; Fig. 3 in Obata) to a termination of a radial seal of the lobe (15-19; 20- 24 in Guibert; A-D; E-G in Obata).
In regards to claim 6, Guibert or Obata discloses wherein the compression zone comprises a valley that is disposed between adjacent pairs of lobes (15-19; 20-24 in Guibert; A-D; E-G in Obata) comprising each of the first rotor (13 in Guibert; 1 in Obata) and the second rotor (14 in Guibert; 2 in Obata).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,350,286 to Kisi et al (Kisi hereinafter).
In regards to Claim 1, Kisi (as shown in Figs. 1-10) discloses:
A rotor pack (Fig. 1) for a supercharger (this is an intended use limitation that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim), the rotor pack comprising: a first rotor (2) and a second rotor (3) that include meshed lobes (“helical convex teeth”; Abstract; also apparent in Fig. 1); a shaft supporting each of the first rotor and the second rotor within an enclosing case (1) (“rotatably mounted upon bearings in the casing” at col. 3, lines 47-49 clearly discloses bearings supporting shafts of the rotors); and a relief zone (6) disposed at an intake airflow side (8) of each lobe (Fig. 1; “Pressure exerted upon the liquid during the above stages is relieved via a passage between rotor tooth space 7 and a rotor tooth space 8 created by chamfer 6 and casing 1. During these stages, rotor tooth space 8 is in the intake process. The liquid is forced into rotor tooth space 8 eliminating the drastic rise of pressure due to the liquid compression phenomenon”; col. 6, lines 60-66).
In regards to claim 2, Kisi discloses wherein the relief zone (6) is configured to allow additional airflow to enter the rotor pack. Note that the limitation "is configured to allow additional airflow to enter the rotor pack" is considered functional language. The use of the functional language only requires that the apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Kisi is capable of having the additional fluid/air flow into the first and second rotors, the prior art meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP §2114)).
In regards to claim 3, Kisi discloses wherein the relief zone (6) comprises a curved surface that includes a line of curvature (20, 21; Fig. 3; see also curvatures in Figs. 7-8).
In regards to claim 4, Kisi discloses wherein the line of curvature is tangent to a flat end face (5; Fig. 1; see also Figs. 5-7; “the discharge end”; col. 7, lines 41-43) of the lobes and is tangent to a trailing surface of the lobe (best seen in Figs. 1-2).
In regards to claim 5, Kisi discloses wherein the relief zone (6) extends from a termination of a radial blend (20; Fig. 3) prior to a compression zone (“before the initiation of closing”) to a termination of a radial seal of the lobe (col. 7, lines 29-40).
In regards to claim 6, Kisi discloses wherein the compression zone comprises a valley that is disposed between adjacent pairs of lobes (valleys are clearly shown in Figs. 2-3 & 5) comprising each of the first rotor and the second rotor (Figs. 1-3).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,372,087. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. In other words, the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the issued patent. Specifically, the patent and the instant application claim common subject matter as follows: a rotor pack, first and second rotors with meshed lobes, shafts, an enclosing case, relief zones disposed at air intake sides of each lobe, and all functional limitations associated with these common elements. Finally, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the previous application which matured into a patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 2015/0118086 to Swartzlander, US 5,335,640 to Feuling, US 5,180,299 to Feuling, and US 4,390,331 to Nachtrieb, each of which discloses a rotor packs having similar structures to those recited by Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights