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 .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on October 29, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT 102024000024177 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, Lines 3-4 recite “the at least one or more compression stages”. Claim 1 introduces the stages as “one or more compression stages” without the “at least”. Applicant is suggested to amend such that this limitation is recited similarly throughout the claims for consistency.
Regarding Claim 10, Line 1 recites “The compressor (100) claims 1”. This is believed to be the preamble of the claim that sets forth dependency upon Claim 1. Applicant is suggested to correct the grammar. See the preambles of Claims 2-9 for instance.
Claims 7-8 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
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 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:
Claim 1, Lines 13-14, “elastic elements” modified by the function of being “configured to ensure the seal between zones with different pressure levels”. The element is interpreted to be a metal bellows, flexible elastomeric ring, or equivalents thereof according to Pg. 8 of the Specification filed October 29, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Line 10 recites “the diaphragm (3)”. There are now three diaphragms in the context of the claim. Applicant is suggested to clarify which diaphragm, such as by reciting “first plate diaphragm”. Please note reference numerals have no bearing on limiting claims according to US practice.
Regarding Claim 1, Line 10 recites “in proximity to the at least one impeller”. The term “proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximity” 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. In this instance, it is unclear the distance an object must be to be considered within the proximity to another, or how far is no longer considered not in proximity.
Regarding Claim 1, Line 13 recites “appropriate elastic elements”. The term “appropriate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” 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. In this instance, the claim does not specify how appropriateness is quantified, nor at what point is an elastic element no longer considered appropriate.
Regarding Claim 3, Lines 3-4 recite “the attempering water”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously recited. It is unclear what water the claim refers to. It is noted that Claim 2 introduces atomized water sprayers. However, there is no explicitly claimed link between the sprayers and the attempering water.
Regarding Claim 10, Lines 2-3 recite “i.e. not parallel to the rotation axis. The phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 and 4-9 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 10, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (CN117307502A), hereinafter Qi, in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0225977 A1), hereinafter Kim, and An et al. (US 2016/0305450 A1), hereinafter An. References to the text of Qi will refer to the numbering in the machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, interpreting elastic elements under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to be a metal bellows, flexible elastomeric ring, or equivalents thereof, Figures 1-2 of Qi teach a steam compressor (see paragraph [n0001]), centrifugal, having one compression stage and comprising: at least one impeller (2) supported by the shaft (not shown), a first plate diaphragm (8), a second diaphragm (13 or portions of 11) rigidly and fluidly connected to the diaphragm (3) and in proximity to the at least one impeller (2); further comprising a casing (11) elastically mounted with respect to the diaphragm (13) and which is free to expand and move with respect to the diaphragm (13) by means of appropriate elastic elements (5, can be an O-ring [n0036-0038]) configured to ensure the seal between zones with different pressure levels [n0031-0032]. The limitation of being suitable for compressing steam coming from a pipe with a suction flange is considered intended use of the claimed impeller. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior at apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II regarding functional language). As noted, Qi teaches all the structural limitations of the impeller being supported by the shaft in a steam compressor. Thus, the structure required for the impeller to meet the claimed intended use is met. The same can be said about the casing being free to expand and move, since the structure of the casing elastically mounted by means of elastic elements is met.
Qi does not expressly teach the second diaphragm being a second and a third diaphragm as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practices is the making parts separable (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). In the instant application, the formation of second and third diaphragms is interpretable as separating portions of (11) or (13) into more parts, as doing so could provide different ways to access the interior (C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the steam compressor taught by Qi such that there is a second and a third diaphragm, since a separation of parts is considered a matter of design choice.
Qi does not expressly teach one or more compression stages, a gear multiplier provided with a plurality of shafts rotatable, with respect to a rotation axis, the first plate diaphragm rigidly connected to the multiplier as claimed. However, such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of Kim.
Figures 2-3 of Kim teach a steam compressor with one or more compression stages (110a, d or 110b, c), a gear multiplier (140) provided with a plurality of shafts (153) rotatable, with respect to a rotation axis, the first diaphragm plate (casings of 110a-d) rigidly connected to the multiplier (140) (note they are all static structure as disclosed). The use of multiple compressors (110a-d) allows for the continual compression of fluid in a manner which allows for reducing the load required [0039-0040]. The gear multiplier (140) allows for changing the rotation speed among the different compression stages (110a-d), and allows for reduced shaft lengths [0050-0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the steam compressor taught by Qi with one or more compression stages, a gear multiplier provided with a plurality of shafts rotatable, with respect to a rotation axis, the first plate diaphragm rigidly connected to the multiplier as suggested by Kim, to provide the benefits of continual compression with reduced load through multiple compressors, and changing rotation speeds or reducing shaft lengths through the gear multiplier.
Qi does not expressly teach a thermal barrier interposed to minimize the heat exchange as claimed. However, a thermal barrier would have been obvious in view of An.
Figure 1A of An teaches a compressor arrangement with a thermal barrier (35). The thermal barrier (35) shields heat from the intake air of the compressor (10) so that there is little influence on other portions, such as control part (47) [0039, 0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the steam compressor taught by Qi-Kim with teach a thermal barrier interposed to minimize the heat exchange as suggested by An, to provide the benefit of preventing heat from the fluid from influencing other parts of the compressor.
Regarding Claim 10, Qi, Kim, and An teach the steam compressor as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 2 of Qi teaches a suction nozzle (3) with a radial or diagonal orientation, i.e. not parallel to the rotation axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2, the closest art of record, Qi, does not expressly teach a plurality of atomized water sprayers, located downstream of the second and third diaphragm and downstream of the at least one impeller, the plurality of atomized water sprayers being arranged circumferentially with respect to the axis and fed by ducts. While Figure 2 of Qi discloses atomized water sprayers (4) (see paragraph [n0048]), the sprayers are at best only downstream of the at least one impeller. Figures 4-5 of the instant application illustrate the claimed atomized water sprayer (6). According to points 1) and 2) on Pg. 8-9 of the Specification for the instant application, the location of the atomized water sprayer (6) is desirable for allowing an installation of a greater number of vaporizers and allowing vaporization of the atomized water.
Claims 3-9 subsequently depend upon Claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights