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 .
Status
Claims(s) 1-9, 11-12, is/are filed on 01/05/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12 is/are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
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 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 pre-AIA 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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Livesay (US 4111005 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
283
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Livesay discloses a liquid separator (accumulator-dehydrator 30) for a gas flow charged with liquid (refrigerant fluid entering via inlet 32, which is a mixture of liquid and vaporous refrigerant; see Col. 2, ll. 20–30), having an inner volume (interior chamber 40 within cylindrical housing 31; Col. 3, ll. 25–45). Livesay further discloses that the liquid separator has at least one baffle element (inverted cup-shaped deflector or baffle member 50; Col. 3, ll. 5–35: “an inverted cup-shaped deflector or baffle member, generally indicated at 50”). The baffle (50) includes a generally frusto-conical skirt portion that deflects the incoming refrigerant fluid, causing liquid refrigerant to separate from the vaporous refrigerant (Col. 3, ll. 15–25). Livesay further discloses a collection area for the separated liquid (sump portion 56 at the bottom of housing 31; Col. 3, ll. 30–55: “Liquid refrigerant tends to settle toward the bottom of the chamber 40,” forming the sump portion 56; Col. 4, ll. 5–35: “a quantity of oil will collect in the accumulator-dehydrator chamber 40” in the sump 56). Livesay further discloses a heat-conducting element made of a material with heat conductivity arranged in the collection area and protruding towards the at least one baffle element into the gas flow in the inner volume. Specifically, Livesay teaches a vertically extending suction outlet conduit tube, standpipe or stem pipe (44) that extends through the bottom wall of the housing (31) and upward through the chamber (40) to the baffle (50) (Col. 3, ll. 1–15: “a vertically extending suction outlet conduit tube, standpipe or stem pipe 44”). The stem pipe (44) is made of metal, as confirmed by the fact that it is “sealingly attached thereto by suitable means such as welding or brazing” to the metal bottom wall (Col. 3, ll. 3–25). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a metal structural element inherently constitutes a “heat-conducting element made of a material with heat conductivity,” since metals such as steel and aluminum have thermal conductivities in the range of approximately 50–205 W/m·K. The stem pipe (44) is arranged in the collection area because it passes through the sump portion (56) and has an oil bleed hole (78) positioned near the sump (Col. 4, ll. 10–25: “a small oil bleed hole 78 is provided in the stem pipe 44 near the housing sump 56”). The stem pipe (44) protrudes towards the baffle element (50) into the gas flow in the inner volume because it extends vertically upward from the sump (56) through the interior chamber (40), where gas flow occurs, to the upper end where the baffle (50) is press-fit directly onto the stem pipe (Col. 3, ll. 5–30). Livesay further discloses that the baffle element is made from a material which conducts heat less well than the heat-conducting element. The title of Livesay is “Press-on Plastic Baffle for Accumulator-Dehydrator,” and the specification confirms that the baffle (50) is made of plastic (Col. 2, ll. 5–15: “an improved plastic baffle”), replacing the prior art’s metal (aluminum) baffle (Col. 1, ll. 55–65: “In the prior art such a deflector was formed of metal, preferably aluminum”). Plastic has a thermal conductivity of approximately 0.2–0.5 W/m·K, which is orders of magnitude lower than that of the metal stem pipe (44). Therefore, the baffle element (50) is made from a material which conducts heat less well than the heat-conducting element (44).
Regarding claim 2, the Livesay teaches the liquid separator as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Livesay further discloses that the heat-conducting element and the at least one baffle element are connected to one another. Specifically, the plastic baffle (50) is press-fit directly onto the metal stem pipe (44) (Col. 2, ll. 10–40: the baffle has an “integral securing portion depending from the baffle closed upper end. The securing portion is spider-like in cross section, providing three spaced upwardly tapered webs each of which supports a vertically extending arcuate rib portion providing a press fit with the standpipe”). The press-fit connection between the baffle (50) and the stem pipe (44) directly satisfies the limitation that the heat-conducting element and the baffle element are “connected to one another.”
Regarding claim 3, Livesay teaches the liquid separator as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Livesay further discloses that the heat-conducting element is made of metal and the at least one baffle element is made of plastic. The stem pipe (44) is metal, as confirmed by its attachment to the housing bottom wall by “welding or brazing” (Col. 3, ll. 3–35). The baffle (50) is explicitly plastic, as stated in the title (“Press-on Plastic Baffle”) and abstract (“an improved plastic baffle”). This directly and explicitly satisfies the recited material limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Livesay further discloses that the heat-conducting element is made of a metal sheet element and a connection element to the at least one baffle element. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the wall of the metal stem pipe (44) constitutes a “metal sheet element” because a tube is formed from rolled or drawn sheet metal. The press-fit securing portion of the baffle (50), comprising “three spaced upwardly tapered webs each of which supports a vertically extending arcuate rib portion” (Col. 2, ll. 10–20), constitutes a “connection element to the at least one baffle element” as it structurally connects the stem pipe (44) to the baffle (50).
Regarding claim 5, Livesay further discloses that the heat-conducting element has one or more plates which are smaller in area than the cross section of the inner volume through which flow can take place. The cross section of the metal stem pipe (44) is smaller than the cross section of the cylindrical housing (31), thereby allowing gas to flow around the stem pipe within the chamber (40). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the end wall or any transverse cross-sectional area of the stem pipe (44) constitutes a “plate” that is smaller than the housing cross section.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Livesay teaches the liquid separator as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. The claim recites that the heat-conducting element has “at least one perforated plate, multiple rods, and/or at least one grid.” Because the claim uses “and/or,” only one of these alternatives need be shown. Livesay discloses a cylindrical screen assembly (80) supported about the stem pipe (44), including “screen-like material (86)” (Col. 4, ll. 15–25). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this screen material reads on “at least one grid.”
Regarding claim 8, Livesay further discloses that exactly one baffle element is provided. As shown in Livesay’s Figures and described in the specification, the accumulator-dehydrator (30) includes a single inverted cup-shaped deflector or baffle member (50) (Col. 3, ll. 5–25: “an inverted cup-shaped deflector or baffle member, generally indicated at 50”).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay (US 4111005 A).
Regarding claim 7, Livesay does not disclose that a housing around the inner volume and the at least one baffle element are formed in one piece. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid separator of Livesay, to form the housing and the baffle element as one piece. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because integral molding of the housing and baffle reduces the number of separate parts, simplifies assembly, eliminates the need for a separate press-fit or fastening step, and reduces manufacturing cost, as is well understood in the art of plastic injection-molded separator components. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(B) (making integral).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay in view of Zachos (US 20110113738 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Livesay discloses that the sump (56) is connected to the compressor (10) via the oil bleed hole (78) in the stem pipe (44) and the suction line (48) (Col. 4, ll. 10–45), which provides a connection from the collection area to a further component (the compressor). However, Livesay does not explicitly disclose a switchable drain valve.
Zachos teaches a separator for liquids from liquid-loaded compressed gases, wherein the collecting space (3) has a discharge opening (6) with a valve (7) provided at the bottom (5) of the housing (1) (Para. [0037]: “A discharge opening (6) with a valve (7) is provided at the bottom (5) of the housing (1). The liquid (4) can be drained out through this discharge opening (6)”). The valve (7) provides a switchable connection between the collection area and the environment: when open, collected liquid drains out; when closed, the collection area is sealed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid separator of Livesay to include a drain valve at the sump (56), as taught by Zachos. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because providing a switchable drain valve at the collection area allows controlled periodic draining of accumulated liquid and contaminants from the sump, preventing overfilling and ensuring continued effective separator operation, as is standard practice in the compressed-gas liquid separator art, as evidenced by Zachos.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777