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 of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 12/02/2025. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the specifications have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 6, 7, 13, 16 and 17 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 15 and 18-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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 1, 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012).
Regarding Claim 1, Fan teaches a refrigeration system (0002) comprising
a common suction line (main suction pipe 3, Figure 1A);
a common discharge line (main discharge pipe 4, Figure 1A);
first and second compressors (variable speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, 0005, Figure 1A), disposed in parallel (0005) to receive, at low connections at respective low positions of each of the first and second high-side compressors (annotated Figure 1A), low-pressure refrigerant from the common suction line and to direct high-pressure refrigerant to the common discharge line at high connections at respective high positions of each of the first and second high-side compressors (annotated Figure 1A), each of which is higher than a corresponding one of the respective low connections (where the main suction pipe 3 connections are below the main discharge pipe 3 positions, annotated Figure 1A; and where one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would understand compressors are required to work at a differential pressure, discharge pressure minus suction pressure and the operation of a compressor cycle begins with the suction process and ends with discharge process at a higher pressure than the suction process; as evidenced by ASHRAE, Figure 3, 38.1 and 38.2.)
a first pipe (oil balancing pipe; 0021) connected to the first and second high-side compressors at vertical heights at which an oil supply is required to remain higher (where oil balancing pipe is connected to an oil sump of each compressor and configured to balance respective oil levels; 0021);
a second pipe (gas balancing pipe; 0021) connected to the first and second high-side compressors at vertical heights (at an upper part of the oil sump of the compressors; 0021) to maintain gas pressure balance between the first and second compressors (where the gas balancing pipe is configured to reduce pressure difference; 0021),
wherein each of the first and second compressors comprises a shell to define an interior (annotated Figure 1A);
But Fan does not teach the first and second compressors are high-side compressors.
However, ASHRAE teaches the motor in hermetic compressors is cooled by refrigerant flow and the flow can be before suction (low-side compressors) or after discharge (high-side compressors) (page 38.6). AHSRAE teaches there is no clear advantage or disadvantage in low-or high-side cooling and the total effect on compressor performance is inconclusive and must be resolved by detailed thermal analysis or testing (page 38.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try high-side compressors, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a low-side compressor or a high-side compressor, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., meeting the cost requirements, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Fan does not teach where a motor is disposed within the interior at a location closer to the common discharge line than the common suction line, where the motor comprises a stator, and where the shell defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the motor for each of the first and second high-side compressors
However, Park teaches a rotary compressor (0002) where a motor (motor 120, Figure 1) is disposed within an interior (inner space of casing 110, Figure 1) at a location closer to the discharge line (discharge pipe 114, Figure 1) than the suction line (suction pipe 113, Figure 1) where the motor comprises a stator (stator 121, Figure 1;0058), and where the shell (casing 110, Figure 1) defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the stator for the high-side compressor ((where the compressor motor is positioned after the compression chamber (i.e., on the high-pressure side, in contact with discharge gas leaving to the condenser), such that it is a high-side compressor, Applicant Specification, par.0039, and where the motor is between the compression unit 130 and discharge pipe 114 requiring discharge gas to flow about the motor 120 comprising stator 121, Figure 1) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, rotary compressor, for another, compressors of a parallel compressor system, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design (as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where a motor is disposed within the interior at a location closer to the common discharge line than the common suction line, where the motor comprises a stator, and where the shell defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the motor for each of the first and second high-side compressors in view of the teachings of Park where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design (as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Fan teaches where the second pipe is connected to the shell of each of the first and second high-side compressors (where the gas balancing pipe may be connected to an upper part of the oil sump of each compressor, implying connection through the shell of each compressor, annotated Figure 1A; 0021) but does not teach the second pipe is below each of the respective high positions and above each of the respective low positions.
However, Lifson teaches tandem compressors [0001] where the second pipe [gas equalization line 28, Figure 1], below each of the respective high positions [where discharge lines 36 are at the top of compressors 22 and 24, Figure 1] and above each of the respective low positions [where suction lines 32 are at the bottom of compressors 22 and 24, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, installing a gas equalization line along the fluid path between suction and discharge, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., equalizing gas pressure along the fluid path of the compressor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the second pipe is below each of the respective high positions and above each of the respective low positions in view of the teachings of Lifson where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., equalizing gas pressure along the fluid path of the compressor.
The combined teachings further do not teach the second pipe is above each of the motors at an upper end of each of the flow paths
However, Sakitani teaches a compressor in a refrigerating apparatus (compressor 20, Figure 1; 0001) where the second pipe (equalizing path, 40) is above the motor ( motor 23, Figure 1), at an upper end of the flow path (where equalizing path 40 is closer to the discharge pipe 26 above it than the suction pipe 25 below it, Figure 1), where Applicant has not disclosed that having a second pipe does anything more than produce the predictable result of allowing gas pressure balance. Since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of allowing gas to be balanced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the second pipe is above each of the motors, at an upper end of each of the flow paths in view of Sakitani where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage of each compression chamber by equalizing pressure from the internal high pressure space of the compression chambers.
Regarding Claim 4, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 but does not teach the first and second high-side compressors further comprise: a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant; and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section.
However, Park teaches a rotary compressor (0002) where a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant (compression unit 130); and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section where a motor (motor 120, Figure 1) is disposed within an interior (inner space of casing 110, Figure 1) (where the compressor motor is positioned after the compression chamber (i.e., on the high-pressure side, in contact with discharge gas leaving to the condenser), such that it is a high-side compressor, Applicant Specification, par.0039, and where the motor is between the compression unit 130 and discharge pipe 114 requiring discharge gas to flow about the motor, Figure 1) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, rotary compressor, for another, compressors of a parallel compressor system, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design ((as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fan to where the first and second high-side compressors further comprise: a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant; and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section in view of the teachings of Park where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design ((as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Regarding Claim 5, Fan teaches the first pipe (oil balancing pipe; 0021) allows oil to pass between the shell of each of the first and second high-side compressors (where the oil balancing pipe is configured to balance respective oil levels of respective oil sumps in the variable-speed compressor and the fixed-speed compressor, Figure 1A; 0021).
Regarding Claim 8, Fan teaches the second pipe (oil balancing pipe;0021) pipe is positioned to minimize a shell pressure difference between the first and second compressors (where the oil balancing pipe is configured to balance respective oil levels of respective oil sumps in the variable-speed compressor and the fixed-speed compressor, Figure 1A; 0021).
Fan does not teach the first and second compressors are high-side compressors.
However, ASHRAE teaches the motor in hermetic compressors is cooled by refrigerant flow and the flow can be before suction (low-side compressors) or after discharge (high-side compressors) (page 38.6). AHSRAE teaches there is no clear advantage or disadvantage in low-or high-side cooling and the total effect on compressor performance is inconclusive and must be resolved by detailed thermal analysis or testing (page 38.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try high-side compressors, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a low-side compressor or a high-side compressor, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., meeting the cost requirements, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) as applied to claims 1 above and further in view of Alsenz (Patent No. 5067326 – Published 23 August 1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and furtherteaches a refrigeration and air-conditioning system may include a plurality of compressors, and the compressors form a compressor system (col. 1, lines 26 – 28) but does not disclose an evaporator from which the common suction line carries the low-pressure refrigerant; a condenser to which the common discharge line carries the high-pressure refrigerant; or an expansion valve fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator.
However, Alsenz teaches a refrigeration system (cooling system 20) comprising a plurality of compressors disposed in parallel (parallel piped refrigerant compressors 12, 14,16 and 18, Figure 1), an evaporator (evaporator coil 35, Figure 1) from which the common suction line (suction line 38, Figure 1) carries the low-pressure refrigerant; a condenser (condenser coil 25, Figure 1) to which the common discharge line (discharge line, 22) carries the high-pressure refrigerant; and an expansion valve (valve 30, Figure 1) fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator, where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a refrigeration system according to the vapor compression cycle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an evaporator from which the common suction line carries the low-pressure refrigerant, a condenser to which the common discharge line carries the high-pressure refrigerant, and an expansion valve fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator in view of the teachings of Alsenz where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a refrigeration system according to the vapor compression cycle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further in view of Jordan (Patent No. 2253623 – Published 26 Aug 1941).
Regarding Claim 3, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and Fan does not teach the first pipe includes a valve and that the second pipe includes a valve.
However, Jordan teaches parallel compressors in a refrigeration system (col. 2, lines 24-32) where the first pipe (oil equalizing conduit 35 connected to branch conduits 36, Figure 1) and the second pipe (pressure equalizing conduit 38 connected to branch conduits 39, Figure 1) where the first pipe includes a valve (shut-off valves 37, Figure 1) and the second pipe includes a valve (shut-off valves 40, Figure 2), where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., permitting the isolation of the compressors (col. 2, lines 24-26) during solo operation of the first or second high-side compressors and provide more capacity control options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the first pipe includes a valve and that the second pipe includes a valve in view of the teachings of Jordan where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., permitting the isolation of the compressors (col. 2, lines 24-26) during solo operation of the first or second high-side compressors and provide more capacity control options.
Claims 9, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (Patent No. 10330093 – Published June 25 2019) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020) , Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012).
Regarding Claim 9, Fan teaches a refrigeration system (0002), comprising:
a common suction line (main suction pipe 3, Figure 1A);
a common discharge line (main discharge pipe 4, Figure 1A);
first and second compressors (variable speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, 0005, Figure 1A) disposed in parallel (0005) to receive, at low connections at respective low positions of each of the first and second high-side compressors (annotated Figure 1A), low-pressure refrigerant from the common suction line and to direct high-pressure refrigerant to the common discharge line at high connections at respective high positions of each of the first and second high-side compressors (annotated Figure 1A), each of which is higher than a corresponding one of the respective low connections (where the main suction pipe 3 connections are below the main discharge pipe 3 connections, annotated Figure 1A; and where one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date would understand compressors are required to work at a differential pressure, discharge pressure minus suction pressure and the operation of a compressor cycle begins with the suction process ends with discharge process at a higher pressure than the suction process; as evidenced by ASHRAE, Figure 3, 38.1 and 38.2.);
a first pipe (oil balancing pipe; 0021) connected to the first and second high-side compressors at vertical heights at which an oil supply is required to remain higher (where oil balancing pipe is connected to an oil sump of each compressor and configured to balance respective oil levels; 0021);
a second pipe (gas balancing pipe; 0021) connected to the first and second high-side compressors at vertical heights (at an upper part of the oil sump of the compressors; 0021) to maintain gas pressure balance between the first and second compressors (where the gas balancing pipe is configured to reduce pressure difference; 0021),
wherein each of the first and second compressors comprises a shell to define an interior (annotated Figure 1A).
Fan does not teach the first and second compressors are high-side compressors.
However, ASHRAE teaches the motor in hermetic compressors is usually cooled by refrigerant flow and the flow can be before suction (low-side compressors) or after discharge (high-side compressors) (page 38.6). AHSRAE teaches there is no clear advantage or disadvantage in low-or high-side cooling and the total effect on compressor performance is inconclusive and must be resolved by detailed thermal analysis or testing (page 38.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try high-side compressors, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a low-side compressor or a high-side compressor, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., meeting the cost requirements, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Fan does not teach where a motor is disposed within the interior at a location closer to the common discharge line than the common suction line, where the motor comprises a stator, and where the shell defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the motor for each of the first and second high-side compressors
However, Park teaches a rotary compressor (0002) where a motor (motor 120, Figure 1) is disposed within an interior (inner space of casing 110, Figure 1) at a location closer to the discharge line (discharge pipe 114, Figure 1) than the suction line (suction pipe 113, Figure 1) where the motor comprises a stator (stator 121, Figure 1;0058), and where the shell (casing 110, Figure 1) defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the motor for the high-side compressor (where the compressor motor is positioned after the compression chamber (i.e., on the high-pressure side, in contact with discharge gas leaving to the condenser), such that it is a high-side compressor, Applicant Specification, par.0039, and where the motor is between the compression unit 130 and discharge pipe 114 requiring discharge gas to flow about the motor, Figure 1) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, rotary compressor, for another, compressors of a parallel compressor system, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design ((as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings, to where a motor is disposed within the interior at a location closer to the common discharge line than the common suction line, where the motor comprises a stator, and where the shell defines a flow path by which discharge gas flows about the motor for each of the first and second high-side compressors in view of the teachings of Park where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design ((as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
equalizing pressure from the internal high pressure space of the compression chambers.
Fan teaches where the second pipe is connected to the shell of each of the first and second high-side compressors (where the gas balancing pipe may be connected to an upper part of the oil sump of each compressor, implying connection through the shell of each compressor, annotated Figure 1A; 0021) but does not teach the second pipe is below each of the respective high positions and above each of the respective low positions.
However, Lifson teaches tandem compressors [0001] where the second pipe [gas equalization line 28, Figure 1], below each of the respective high positions [where discharge lines 36 are at the top of compressors 22 and 24, Figure 1] and above each of the respective low positions [where suction lines 32 are at the bottom of compressors 22 and 24, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, installing a gas equalization line along the fluid path between suction and discharge, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., equalizing gas pressure along the fluid path of the compressor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the second pipe is below each of the respective high positions and above each of the respective low positions in view of the teachings of Lifson where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., equalizing gas pressure along the fluid path of the compressor.
The combined teachings further do not teach the second pipe is above each of the motors at an upper end of each of the flow paths.
However, Sakitani teaches a compressor in a refrigerating apparatus (compressor 20, Figure 1; 0001) where the second pipe (equalizing path, 40) is above the motor ( motor 23, Figure 1), at an upper end of the flow path (where equalizing path 40 is closer to the discharge pipe 26 above it than the suction pipe 25 below it, Figure 1), where Applicant has not disclosed that having a second pipe does anything more than produce the predictable result of allowing gas pressure balance. Since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of allowing gas to be balanced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the second pipe is above each of the motors, at an upper end of each of the flow paths in view of Sakitani where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage of each compression chamber by equalizing pressure from the internal high pressure space of the compression chambers.
Regarding Claim 12, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches the first and second compressors (variable speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, claim 1) but does not teach that each compressor comprises: a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant; and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section.
However, Park teaches a rotary compressor (0002) where a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant (compression unit 130); and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section where a motor (motor 120, Figure 1) is disposed within an interior (inner space of casing 110, Figure 1) (where the compressor motor is positioned after the compression chamber (i.e., on the high-pressure side, in contact with discharge gas leaving to the condenser), such that it is a high-side compressor, Applicant Specification, par.0039, and where the motor is between the compression unit 130 and discharge pipe 114 requiring discharge gas to flow about the motor, Figure 1) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, rotary compressor, for another, compressors of a parallel compressor system, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design (as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings, to have where the first and second high-side compressors further comprise: a compressor section disposed within the interior to compress the low-pressure refrigerant; and the motor disposed to drive operations of the compressor section in view of the teachings of Park where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design (as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Regarding Claim 15, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches a first pipe (oil balancing pipe; 0021) that allows oil to pass between a shell of each of the first and second compressors (where oil balancing pipe is connected to an oil sump of each compressor and configured to balance respective oil levels; 0021).
Regarding Claim 16, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches a first and second compressor (variable-speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, 0005, Figure 1A) but does not teach where a motor drives a compressor section and comprises a stator nor a shell defines a flow path by which gas flows about the stator for each of the first and second high-side compressors.
However, Park teaches a rotary compressor (0002) where a motor (motor 120, Figure 1) that drives a compressor section (compression unit 130 via rotation shaft 123, Figure 1) and comprises a stator (stator 121, Figure 1) and a shell (casing 110, Figure 1) defines a flow path by which gas flows about the stator for the high-side compressor (where the compressor motor is positioned after the compression chamber (i.e., on the high-pressure side, in contact with discharge gas leaving to the condenser), such that it is a high-side compressor, Applicant Specification, par.0039, and where the stator 121 is between the compression unit 130 and discharge pipe 114 requiring discharge gas to flow about the stator 121, Figure 1) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, rotary compressor, for another, compressors of a parallel compressor system, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design ((as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where a motor drives a compressor section and comprises a stator nor a shell defines a flow path by which gas flows about the stator for each of the first and second high-side compressors in view of the teachings of Park where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing high volumetric efficiency inherent to rotary compressor design (as evidenced by ASHRAE, 38.13, Performance).
Regarding Claim 18, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches the second pipe (gas balancing pipe; 0021) is positioned to reduce a shell pressure difference between the first and second compressors (where the gas balancing pipe is configured to reduce pressure difference; 0021).
Fan does not teach the first and second compressors are high-side compressors.
However, ASHRAE teaches the motor in hermetic compressors is cooled by refrigerant flow and the flow can be before suction (low-side compressors) or after discharge (high-side compressors) (page 38.6). AHSRAE teaches there is no clear advantage or disadvantage in low-or high-side cooling and the total effect on compressor performance is inconclusive and must be resolved by detailed thermal analysis or testing (page 38.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try high-side compressors, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a low-side compressor or a high-side compressor, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., meeting the cost requirements, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding Claim 19, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches a method of operating the refrigeration system (0002), the method comprising:
operating the first and second compressors (variable speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, 0005, Figure 1A) in parallel (0005) to receive, at the low connections at the respective low positions (annotated Figure 1A) of each of the first and second high-side compressors (Annotated Figure 1A), the low-pressure refrigerant from the common suction line and to direct the high-pressure refrigerant to the common discharge line at the high connections at the respective high positions (annotated Figure 1A) of each of the first and second high-side compressors (annotated Figure 1A), each of which is higher than the corresponding one of the respective low positions (where the main suction pipe 3 connections are below the main discharge pipe 3 connections, annotated Figure 1A; and where one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date would understand compressors are required to work at a differential pressure, discharge pressure minus suction pressure and the operation of a compressor cycle begins with the suction process ends with discharge process at a higher pressure than the suction process; as evidenced by ASHRAE, Figure 3, 38.1 and 38.2.);
maintaining an oil level (oil balancing pipe; 0021) within the shell of each of the first and second compressors above respective oil equalization line connection heights (where oil balancing pipe is connected to an oil sump of each compressor and configured to balance respective oil levels at an upper part of the oil sump of the compressors; 0021); and
maintaining a gas balance (where the gas balancing pipe is configured to reduce pressure difference; 0021) between the first and second high-side compressors via the second pipe (gas balancing pipe; 0021), which serves as a gas equalization line and which is connected to the respective shells (annotated Figure 1A)
Fan does not teach the first and second compressors are high-side compressors.
However, ASHRAE teaches the motor in hermetic compressors is usually cooled by refrigerant flow and the flow can be before suction (low-side compressors) or after discharge (high-side compressors) (page 38.6). AHSRAE teaches there is no clear advantage or disadvantage in low-or high-side cooling and the total effect on compressor performance is inconclusive and must be resolved by detailed thermal analysis or testing (page 38.6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try high-side compressors, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a low-side compressor or a high-side compressor, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., meeting the cost requirements, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
The combined teachings of Fan and ASHRAE do not teach where the gas equalization line is connected above each of the motors thereof, above upper ends of the flow paths by which discharge gas flows about respective stators of the respective motors.
However, Sakitani teaches a compressor in a refrigerating apparatus (compressor 20, Figure 1; 0001) where the second pipe (equalizing path, 40) is above the motor (motor 23, Figure 1), at an upper end of the flow path (where equalizing path 40 is closer to the discharge pipe 26 above it than the suction pipe 25 below it, Figure 1) by which discharge gas (leading to discharge pipe 26, Figure 3) flows about the stator of the motor (motor 23, Figure 3), where Applicant has not disclosed that having a second pipe does anything more than produce the predictable result of allowing gas pressure balance. Since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of allowing gas to be balanced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the second pipe is above each of the motors, at an upper end of each of the flow paths in view of Sakitani where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the second pipe of the combined teachings to include multiple compressors in parallel and meet the claimed limitations and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage of each compression chamber by equalizing pressure from the internal high pressure space of the compression chambers.
The combined teachings teach the equalization line is below each of the respective high positions [Refer to Lifson as applied to the rejection of Claim 9 above].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alsenz (Patent No. 5067326 – Published 23 August 1990).
Regarding Claim 10, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches a refrigeration and air-conditioning system including a plurality of compressors, where the compressors form a parallel compressor system (0002) but does not teach an evaporator from which the common suction line carries the low-pressure refrigerant; a condenser to which the common discharge line carries the high-pressure refrigerant; or an expansion valve fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator.
However, Alsenz teaches a refrigeration system (cooling system 20) comprising a plurality of compressors disposed in parallel (parallel piped refrigerant compressors 12, 14,16 and 18, Figure 1), an evaporator (evaporator coil 35, Figure 1) from which the common suction line (suction line 38, Figure 1) carries the low-pressure refrigerant; a condenser (condenser coil 25, Figure 1) to which the common discharge line (discharge line, 22) carries the high-pressure refrigerant; and an expansion valve (valve 30, Figure 1) fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator, where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a refrigeration system according to the vapor compression cycle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings, having an evaporator from which the common suction line carries the low-pressure refrigerant, a condenser to which the common discharge line carries the high-pressure refrigerant, and an expansion valve fluidly interposed between the condenser and the evaporator in view of the teachings of Alsenz where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a refrigeration system according to the vapor compression cycle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Kakuda (Patent No. WO2019092916 – Published 16 May 2019).
Regarding Claim 11, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches the variable speed compressor (variable-speed compressor; 0005) and the fixed speed compressor (fixed-speed compressor; 0005) disposed in parallel (0005) but Fan does not teach that where the variable speed compressor has a capacity of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement, and the fixed speed compressor has a capacity of a remainder of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement.
However, Kakuda teaches a variable speed compressor (second compressor unit, 100a, Figure 1) and a fixed speed compressor (first compressor unit, 100b, Figure 1) disposed in parallel where the variable speed has a capacity (Y1, Figure 3) of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement (Y3, Figure 3), and the fixed speed compressor has a capacity of a remainder of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement (Y2, Figure 3, par. 0021), where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modifications to allow a wide capacity control range (par. 0022) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., allowing a wide capacity control range (as evidenced by Kakuda, par. 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the variable speed compressor has a capacity of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement, and the fixed speed compressor has a capacity of a remainder of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement in view of the teachings of Kakuda where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., allowing a wide capacity control range (as evidenced by Kakuda, par. 0022).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition), Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jordan (Patent No. 2253623 – Published 26 August 1941).
Regarding claim 14, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches the first pipe (oil balancing pipe; 0021) and second pipe (gas balancing pipe; 0021) and Fan does not teach that the first pipe includes a valve nor that the second pipe includes a valve.
However, Jordan teaches parallel compressors in a refrigeration system (col. 2, lines 24-32) including a first pipe (oil equalizing conduit 35 connected to branch conduits 36, Figure 1) and a second pipe (pressure equalizing conduit 38 connected to branch conduits 39, Figure 1) where the first pipe includes a valve (shut-off valves 37, Figure 1) and the second pipe includes a valve (shut-off valves 40, Figure 2), where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., permitting the isolation of the compressors ((as evidenced by Jordan, col. 2, lines 24-26) during solo operation of the first or second high-side compressors and provide more capacity control options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings, to have where the first pipe includes a valve and that the second pipe includes a valve in view of the teachings of Jordan where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., permitting the isolation of the compressors (as evidenced by Jordan, col. 2, lines 24-26) during solo operation of the first or second high-side compressors and provide more capacity control options.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US Pub No. 20170016438– Published 19 Jan 2017) in view of ASHRAE (2020 ASHRAE Handbook– HVAC Systems and Equipment, I-P Edition) Park et al. (US Pub No. 20200158111 – Published – 21 May 2020), Lifson (US20100051126A1) and Sakitani (US Pub No. 20090277213A1 – Published 20 Nov 2012) and in further view of Kakuda (Patent No. WO2019092916 – Published 16 May 2019).
Regarding Claim 20, Fan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 19 and further teaches where the first high-side compressor comprises a fixed speed compressor and the second high-side compressor comprises a variable speed compressor (variable speed compressor and fixed-speed compressor, 0005, Figure 1A) but does not teach the variable speed compressor having a capacity of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement, and the fixed speed compressor having a capacity of a rest of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement.
However, Kakuda teaches a variable speed compressor (second compressor unit, 100a, Figure 1) and a fixed speed compressor (first compressor unit, 100b, Figure 1) disposed in parallel where the variable speed has a capacity (Y1, Figure 3) of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement (Y3, Figure 3), and the fixed speed compressor has a capacity of a remainder of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement (Y2, Figure 3, par. 0021) where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., minimize cost compared to a single commercial compressor of equal capacity and the displacement of each compressor also provides more capacity control options (as evidenced by ASHRAE, page 38.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings, to have where the first high-side compressor comprises a fixed speed compressor and the second high-side compressor comprises a variable speed compressor, the variable speed compressor having a capacity of a percentage of a total refrigeration system capacity requirement, and the fixed speed compressor having a capacity of a rest of the total refrigeration system capacity requirement in view of the teachings of Kakuda where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimize cost compared to a single commercial compressor of equal capacity and the displacement of each compressor also provides more capacity control options (ASHRAE, page 38.6).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of remarks filed 12/02/2025, Applicant argues no combination of the cited references teaches or suggests the features as amended “above each of the respective low positions”. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Refer to Lifson as applied to the rejections above.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-5 and except for their dependence upon claim 1. Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 10-12, 14, 15 and 18-20 and except for their dependence upon claim 9. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763