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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-7 and 10-15 in the reply filed on 01/07/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for a compressor that is disposed on one side of a horizontal compressor” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, neither the “compressor” nor the “horizontal compressor” expressly recited or required by the claimed invention. Accordingly, at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“An accumulator comprising: a body; a stand pipe disposed to protrude from a lower surface of the body to an inside of the body; a suction opening provided on a side surface of the body; a baffle disposed above the stand pipe inside the body and including a plurality of baffle holes; and a screen disposed above the baffle.”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey (US 5507159).
As regarding claim 1, Cooksey discloses the claimed invention for an accumulator (20) comprising: a body (22); a stand pipe (32) disposed to protrude from a lower surface of the body to an inside of the body; a suction opening (26); a baffle (annotated fig. 2) disposed above the stand pipe inside the body and including a plurality of baffle holes (49 of figs. 2 and 6); and a screen (46 of fig. 2) disposed above the baffle.
Cooksey does not disclose disclose the suction opening provided on a side surface of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the suction opening provided on a side surface of the body in order to enhance accumulator performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 2, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of the stand pipe is higher than a height from the lower surface of the body to a lower end of the suction opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of the stand pipe is higher than a height from the lower surface of the body to a lower end of the suction opening in order to enhance accumulator performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 10, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the stand pipe comprises two stand pipes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the stand pipe comprises two stand pipes in order to enhance accumulator performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 11, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the suction opening is formed as one end of a suction tube disposed on the side surface of the body perpendicularly to a center line of the stand pipe. When the suction tube is relocated on the side surface of the body, the centerline of the stand pipe will inherently form a 90 degree angle with the suction opening, since the side surface of the body is parallel to the stand pipe’s centerline.
As regarding claim 12, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an upper end of the suction tube is in contact with or adjacent to an upper surface of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein an upper end of the suction tube is in contact with or adjacent to an upper surface of the body in order to enhance accumulator performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 13, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the stand pipe comprises an oil hole (42) formed in the stand pipe adjacent to the lower surface of the body.
As regarding claim 14, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an upper end of the screen is in contact with an upper surface of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein an upper end of the screen is in contact with an upper surface of the body in order to improve mechanical stability, flow control, separation efficiency, and noise reduction, all of which protect the compressor and enhance system reliability, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 15, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein an upper end of the body is positioned below an upper end of the horizontal compressor (see claim interpretation above).
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey (US 5507159), as supra, and further in view of Klotten et la (US 20070144207; hereinafter Klotten).
As regarding claim 5, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the baffle is formed in a convex shape toward an upper surface of the body to surround an upper end portion of the stand pipe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the baffle is formed in a convex shape toward an upper surface of the body to surround an upper end portion of the stand pipe in order to improve fluid dynamics, liquid separation, mechanical strength, and overall efficiency of the accumulator – protecting the compressor and enhancing performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Klotten (26 of fig. 1 or 126 of fig. 2a).
As regarding claim 6, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the screen is formed in a convex shape (Klotten - 26) corresponding to the baffle.
As regarding claim 7, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the baffle is formed in a dome shape, and wherein the plurality of baffle holes are formed on a side surface of the dome shape. In Cooksey, the baffles holes (49) are situated near the periphery of the baffle assembly (45). Consequently, when the baffle is in a dome-shaped configuration, the holes are formed on the lateral surface of the dome-shaped baffle.
As regarding claim 3, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of the stand pipe is higher than a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of each of the plurality of baffle holes. However, in Cooksey, the baffles holes (49) are situated near the periphery of the baffle assembly (45). Consequently, a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of the stand pipe is higher than a height from the lower surface of the body to an upper end of each of the plurality of baffle holes.
As regarding claim 4, Cooksey as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cooksey as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a height from the lower surface of the body to a lower end of the suction opening is higher than the height from the lower surface of the body to the upper end of each of the plurality of baffle holes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a height from the lower surface of the body to a lower end of the suction opening is higher than the height from the lower surface of the body to the upper end of each of the plurality of baffle holes in order to enhance accumulator performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773