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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IV drawn to Figure 3B and claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7, 10 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/7/26.
Claim 7 is being withdrawn as being directed to the species of Figure V where the holding device is rigidly coupled to the first mounting device and spatially separated by a gap from the second mounting device.
Claim 10 is being withdrawn as being directed to the species of Figure 1A (paragraph 109) where a rotational movement of the first mounting device relative to the second mounting device around the compensator axis is absorbed by a curvature of at least one of: the first membrane bellows and the second membrane bellows.
Claim 16 is being withdrawn as being directed to the species of Figure VII (paragraph 135) where the at least one bellows coupler is held non-tiltable relative to the compensator axis (where the channel is a straight channel though the compensator).
Claim 17 is being withdrawn as being directed to the species of Figure VII the at least one bellows coupler comprises a circular outer perimeter.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 8/29/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 10 2024 124 636.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3B, drawing element “106b” is missing (note that the lead line is shown for this element).
The drawings are objected to because the bellows membranes (106a, 106b, 106c) are not shown as “bellows” but rather as a pipe (such as shown in Figure 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 – add --and-- after “mounting device;”.
Correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – add --at least one-- between “the” and “bellows”.
Correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – add --at least one-- between “the” and “bellows”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chul Korean Patent No. KR100611678B1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 5, Chul discloses a multi-axis compensator (as shown in Fig 5 below), comprising:
a first mounting device and a second mounting device;
a passage extending through the first mounting device and the second mounting device along a compensator axis;
multiple membrane bellows disposed in succession along the compensator axis, of which a first membrane bellows is coupled to the first mounting device and a second membrane bellows is coupled to the second mounting device;
at least one bellows coupler by which the first membrane bellows is coupled to the second membrane bellows, such that the first membrane bellows and the second membrane bellows run at an angle to each other, when the first mounting device and the second mounting device are centric to the compensator axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8, Chul discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler is held in a position excentric from the compensator axis independently from a position of the first mounting device and the second mounting device relative to the compensator axis or relative to each other (as shown in Fig 5).
With regard to claim 9, Chul discloses wherein the first mounting device comprises a flange (as shown in Fig 5 above).
With regard to claim 14, Chul discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler is held rotatable about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or to the second mounting device (where the bellows coupler is capable of being rotatable about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or to the second mounting device).
With regard to claim 15, Chul discloses wherein a torsion of the first mounting device and the second mounting device relative to each other is converted into a rotation of the bellows coupler about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or second mounting device (wherein the bellows coupler is capable of being rotated when torsion is applied relative to the first mounting device and the second mounting device).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francis U.S. Patent No. 5,248,170.
With regard to claim 1, Francis discloses a multi-axis compensator, comprising:
a first mounting device (at 36, 40) and a second mounting device (at 38, 42);
a passage (passage between 36 and 38) extending through the first mounting device and the second mounting device along a compensator axis (axis between 36 and 38);
multiple membrane bellows (at 28, 30) disposed in succession along the compensator axis, of which a first membrane bellows (at 28) is coupled to the first mounting device (at 36, 40) and a second membrane bellows (at 30) is coupled to the second mounting device (at 38, 42);
at least one bellows coupler (at 20 to 22) by which the first membrane bellows (at 28) is coupled to the second membrane bellows (at 30), such that the first membrane bellows and the second membrane bellows run at an angle to each other, when the first mounting device and the second mounting device are centric to the compensator axis (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 2, Francis discloses further comprising a holding device (at 50, 46, 62) by which the bellows coupler (at 20 to 22) is held displaced relative to the compensator axis, when the first mounting device and the second mounting device are centric to the compensator axis (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 3, Francis discloses wherein the holding device (at 50, 46, 62) comprises an eccentric holding ring (at 20), by which the bellows coupler (at 20 to 22) is held displaced relative to the compensator axis.
With regard to claim 5, Francis discloses wherein the passage along the compensator axis runs unevenly through the multi-axis compensator, when the first mounting device and the second mounting device are centric to the compensator axis (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 6, Francis discloses wherein the holding device (at 50, 46, 62) is rigidly coupled to first mounting device (via 52).
With regard to claim 8, Francis discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler (at 20 to 22) is held in a position excentric from the compensator axis independently from a position of the first mounting device and the second mounting device relative to the compensator axis (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 9, Francis discloses wherein the first mounting device (at 36, 40) comprises a flange (at 40).
With regard to claim 12, Francis discloses further comprising a third membrane bellows (at 18), wherein the at least one bellows coupler comprises two bellows couplers (at 32, 20 and 34, 22) which are coupled to each other by the third membrane bellows (at 18).
With regard to claim 14, Francis discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler is held rotatable about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or to the second mounting device (where the bellows coupler is capable of being rotatable about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or to the second mounting device).
With regard to claim 15, Francis discloses wherein a torsion of the first mounting device and the second mounting device relative to each other is converted into a rotation of the bellows coupler about the compensator axis relative to the first mounting device or second mounting device (wherein the bellows coupler is capable of being rotated when torsion is applied relative to the first mounting device and the second mounting device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul.
With regard to claim 11, Chul discloses wherein the bellows coupler has two annular connecting surfaces which are opposite to each other (as shown in Fig 5 above) but does not disclose that the connecting surfaces are at an angle to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting surfaces be at an angle to each other with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for an easier connection and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 13, Chul discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler is coupled to at least one of the second membrane bellows (at 44) but does not disclose a material joint coupling.
The Examiner takes Official Notice wherein it is old and well known in the art to couple elements together utilizing a material joint to provide a more secure fluid connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one bellows coupler be coupled to at least one of the second membrane bellows by a material joint with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a more secure fluid connection and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis.
With regard to claim 11, Francis discloses wherein the bellows coupler has two annular connecting surfaces which are opposite to each other (at 20, 22) but does not disclose that the connecting surfaces are at an angle to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting surfaces be at an angle to each other with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for an easier connection and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 13, Francis discloses wherein the at least one bellows coupler is coupled to at least one of the second membrane bellows (at 44) but does not disclose a material joint coupling.
The Examiner takes Official Notice wherein it is old and well known in the art to couple elements together utilizing a material joint to provide a more secure fluid connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one bellows coupler be coupled to at least one of the second membrane bellows by a material joint with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a more secure fluid connection and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon examples of compensators with first and second mounting devices, membrane bellows and at least one bellows coupler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights