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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claims 39-46 recites the method of designing a set of screw compressor or expander rotors, however, there are no indications on the Figures that show first set of X and Y coordinates and second set of X and Y coordinates (claims 35, 39, and 44), separating the second rack at a portion along the curved segment and offsetting the second rack in the Y direction to create a first inner point, a second inner point, a first end point, and a second end point (claim 40), connecting the first inner point and the second inner point and extending a first end point and the second end point to extend the Y height of the second rack to substantially equal the Y height of the first rack (claim 41), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 37-40 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAFFREY (U.S. Patent 3,807,911).
Regarding claim 37, CAFFREY discloses: a screw compressor or expander (see Figures 1-6 and Abstract) comprising:
a male rotor (22) having a first axial length extending from an inlet portion (the inlet portion is near the inlet (14)) to an outlet portion (the outlet portion is near the outlet (16)) and a set of lobes extending along at least a portion of the first axial length (see Figures 1, 3, and 6); and
a female rotor (24) having a second axial length extending from the inlet portion to the outlet portion (see Figures 1, 4, and 6) and a set of grooves extending along at least a portion of the second axial length (see Figures 1, 2, 4, and 6), the set of grooves mating with the set of lobes (see Figures 1 and 6),
wherein the male rotor and the female rotor have a first section with a first profile defined by a first rack having a first set of X and Y coordinates (the first section is from the inlet portion to (E, F)) and a second section with a second profile defined by a second rack different than the first rack having a second set of X and Y coordinates (the second section is from (E, F) to the outlet) (see Figures 1 and 6 that shows the second profile is different from the first rack and have a second set of X and Y coordinates).
Regarding claim 38, CAFFREY discloses: the second rack is scaled from the first rack in the X and Y direction (see Figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 39, CAFFREY discloses: a method of designing a set of screw compressor or expander rotors comprising:
establishing a first rack for a male and female rotor (see Figures 1 and 6), the first rack having at least one curved segment with a first crest having a first set of X and Y coordinates (see Figures 1, 2, and 6, where the X, Y coordinates have at least one curved segment); and
scaling the first rack in the X and Y directions to create a second rack having at least one curved segment with a second crest having a second set of X and Y coordinates, wherein the X coordinate of the second crest is spaced from the X coordinate of the first crest (see Figures 1 and 6 that shows the first rack is scaled from the second rack).
Regarding claim 40, CAFFREY discloses: separating the second rack at a portion along the curved segment and offsetting the second rack in the Y direction to create a first inner point (first inner point along (4)), a second inner point (a second inner point along (3)), a first end point (a first end point along (2) near the inlet of the second rack at (E, F)), and a second end point (a second end point is at the outlet and end of (B, D)) .
Regarding claim 44, CAFFREY discloses: a method of designing a set of screw compressor or expander rotors (see Figures 1-6 and Abstract) comprising:
establishing a first rack for a male and female rotor (see Figures 1, 2, and 6, that shows a first rack for a male (22) and female (24) rotor)), the first rack having at least one curved segment with a first crest having a first set of a X and Y coordinates (see Figures 1, 2, and 6, where the X, Y coordinates have a first crest, where the first rack is from the inlet portion that is near (14) to the section (E.F)); and
establishing a second rack for a male and female rotor (see Figures 1 and 6 that shows a second rack, where the second rack is from section (E,F) to the outlet portion near (16)), the second rack having at least one curved segment with a second crest having a second set of a X and Y coordinates (see Figures 1 and 6 that shows the second rack has at least one curved segment with a second crest), wherein the X coordinate of the second crest is spaced from the X coordinate of the first crest (see Figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 45, CAFFREY discloses: the first rack has a first height in the Y direction and the second rack has a second height in the Y direction equal to the first height (see Figures 1-6).
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.
Claims 41, 42, and 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAFFREY.
Regarding claim 41, CAFFREY discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose connecting the first inner point and the second inner point and extending a first end point and the second end point to extend the Y height of the second rack to substantially equal the Y height of the first rack, however, if would be obvious.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have connecting the first inner point and the second inner point and extending a first end point and the second end point to extend the Y height of the second rack to substantially equal the Y height of the first rack in the method of designing a set of screw compressor or screw expander rotors of CAFFREY, since CAFFREY discloses the Y height of the second rack is substantially equal to the Y height of the first rack (see Figures 1, 2, and 6, where the housing is shown to be cylindrical and that the Y height of the second rack is substantially equal to the Y height of the first rack). In addition, connecting points between the first and second rack requires only routine skill in the art, since these connections allow for a continuous curve between the two different profiled curves as disclosed by CAFFREY (see Figures 1 and 6 of CAFFREY).
Regarding claim 42, CAFFREY discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose using an interpolation method to connect points on the rack to create the second rack curve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have used an interpolation method to connect points on the rack to create the second rack curve in the method of designing a set of screw compressor or screw expander rotors of CAFFREY, in order to create a smooth and continuous transition from the first rack to the second rack.
Regarding claim 46, CAFFREY discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose using interpolation to define the male and female rotor between the first rack and the second rack.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have used an interpolation method to connect points on the rack to create the second rack curve in the method of designing a set of screw compressor or screw expander rotors of CAFFREY, in order to create a smooth and continuous transition from the first rack to the second rack.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAFFREY in view of TENFJORD (WIPO Publication WO 02075117 A1).
Regarding claim 43, CAFFREY discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose scaling the first or second rack in both the X and Y directions to create a third rack having an X coordinate of substantially zero (CAFFREY only discloses a first rack and a second rack).
Regarding claim 43, TENFJORD teaches: a first rack, a second rack, and a third rack (see Figures 1 showing 3 different racks) scaling the first or second rack in both the X and Y directions to create a third rack having an X coordinate of substantially zero (the limitation directed to “scaling the first or second rack in both the X and Y directions to create a third rack having an X coordinate of substantially zero” is interpreted broadly, where placement of the third rack at a substantially zero X coordinate is a matter of placement, with no specific structure generated from doing this).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have scaling the first or second rack in both the X and Y directions to create a third rack having an X coordinate of substantially zero in the method of designing a set of screw compressor or screw expander rotors of CAFFREY, since creating a third rack is well-known in the art as evidence by TENFJORD. Furthermore, scaling the first or second rack to generate the third rack requires only routine skill in the art, as well as, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patents 10,975,867 B2 and 11,644,034 B2 are part of the current application’s family and were reviewed for double patenting.
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