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 .
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:
In claims 26-27, rod side sealing structure which uses the generic placeholder “structure” coupled with the function “plays a role in preventing an introduction of the liquefied gas from the cylinder side and in preventing the introduction of air and impurities at the coupled part of the drive shaft and the piston”. The rod side sealing structure is interpreted as the structure in Fig 12.
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 § 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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mikulski US 20170227002.
Mikulski discloses:
28. (New) A liquefied gas compression device to compress and discharge liquefied gas by a linear reciprocating motion of a piston 106, wherein the piston is configured to linearly reciprocate in a cylinder 102, and wherein a cylinder side where the piston is embedded in the cylinder and reciprocates and a rod side which is the other end of the piston, are respectively provided with a cylinder side sealing structure 122 and a rod side sealing structure 124.
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) 1, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulski US 20170227002 in view of Post US 4556371.
Regarding claim 1, Mikulski discloses a liquefied gas compression device (see e.g. Fig 10A) to compress and discharge liquefied gas by a linear reciprocating motion of the piston 106, wherein a cylinder side where the piston is embedded in the cylinder and reciprocates, and a rod side which is the other end of the piston, are respectively provided with a cylinder side sealing structure (comprising 122) and a rod side sealing structure (comprising 124).
Mikulski does not disclose a rotatable camshaft; a plurality of cam noses arranged at regular intervals along a lengthwise direction of the camshaft, wherein the cam noses are eccentric from a center of the camshaft; a cam roller in close contact with each cam nose; a drive shaft and a piston adjacent to each other on one side of the cam roller.
Post discloses a rotatable camshaft 14; a plurality of cam noses (16, 18, 20) arranged at regular intervals along a lengthwise direction of the camshaft, wherein the cam noses are eccentric from a center of the camshaft; a cam roller 28 in close contact with each cam nose; a drive shaft 36 and a piston (22, 24, 26) adjacent to each other on one side of the cam roller (see e.g. Fig 2).
A simple substitution of one known pump drive for another with the predictable result of driving pump pistons has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a camshaft drive as taught by Post as a simple substitution for the drive of Mikulski to gain the benefit of using a drive known to be used for piston pumps.
Mikulski as modified above does not provide any details of the piston sealing structure and thus does not disclose the limitations of claims 22-24.
Nguyen discloses:
Claim 22: wherein the cylinder side sealing structure includes a spring member seating groove (groove in which 21 is located or groove in which 33 is located in 25) and a guide ring seating groove spatially connected to the circumference of the piston portion (groove in which 20 is located or groove in which 25 is located between 24 and the portion of the piston which axially engages 25), an band-shaped spring member (21 or 33) having an elastic property is mounted in the spring member seating groove, and a band-shaped plate type guide ring (20 or 25) is mounted in the guide ring seating groove.
Claim 23: wherein the cylinder side sealing structure is configured to a combination of the guide ring and the spring member is repeated a plurality of times along the lengthwise
direction of the piston (see 21 and 20 repeated in e.g. Figs 1-2).
Claim 24: wherein a width of the spring member 33 seated in the spring member seating groove is smaller than a width of the guide ring 25 seated in the guide ring seating groove (see e.g. Fig 2).
Claim 25: wherein the guide ring plays a role in guiding the movement of the piston during the reciprocating motion of the piston in the cylinder (see e.g. Fig 2), and the spring member which is in contact with the guide ring and seated in the spring member seating groove plays a role in damping the force applied to the guide ring during the movement of the piston (see e.g. Fig 2).
A simple substitution of one known piston sealing structure for another with the predictable result of sealing a piston in a cylinder has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the piston sealing structure as taught by Nguyen as a simple substitution for the piston sealing structure of Mikulski to gain the benefit of using a piston sealing structure known to be used for piston pumps that provides long service life as taught by Nguyen in col 5 lines 9-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: given the claim interpretations above, no reference of record discloses the structure shown in Fig 12 of a structure that is so structurally similar as to be considered equivalent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be seen in form PTO-892 including:
Tonge discloses a piston sealing structure including a spring.
Brenneke discloses a piston sealing structure including a spring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights