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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, drawn to figures 1-2 and 4, in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the claims does not present a burden to the examiner considering the scope of the subject matter, the prior-art classifications are well-organized and defined, and automated and agentic search tools are available to the examiner. This is not found persuasive. According to MPEP 808.02, in order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show one of the following:
A) Separate Classification thereof
B) A separate status in the art when they are classified together
C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together.
Regarding traversal grounds, Species 1 requires the pressure-control flow path including a valve and a capillary tube, and extending from a discharge chamber of a second compressor to a second arm of a suction manifold, and includes a conduit that is connected to the valve and to the shell of the second compressor. Species 2 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge chamber of a second compressor to a suction chamber of the second compressor, such that when a valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows from the discharge chamber of the second compressor, through a capillary tube, through the valve, through a conduit, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 3 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge chamber of a second compressor to a suction chamber of the second compressor, such
that when a valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows
from the discharge chamber of the second compressor through a conduit, through the
valve, through a capillary tube, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 4 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge outlet tube of a second compressor to a second arm of a suction manifold, such that when a valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows from a discharge chamber of a second compressor through the discharge outlet of the second compressor, through the discharge outlet tube of the second compressor, through the conduit, through the valve, through a capillary tube, into the second arm of the suction manifold, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 5 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge chamber of a second compressor to the suction chamber of the second compressor, such that when a valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows from the discharge chamber of the second compressor through a conduit, through the valve, through a capillary tube, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 6 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge outlet tube of the second compressor to the suction chamber of the second compressor, such that when the valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows from the discharge chamber of the second compressor through the discharge outlet, into the discharge outlet tube, into a conduit, through the valve, through the capillary tube, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 7 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from a discharge conduit, to the suction chamber of the second compressor, such that when the valve allows fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path, fluid flows from the discharge chamber of the second compressor through the discharge outlet, through the discharge outlet tube, into the discharge conduit, into the capillary tube, through the valve, through the conduit, and into the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 8 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from an outlet of a first heat exchanger or a location between the outlet of the first heat exchanger and an inlet of an expansion device, to the suction chamber of the second compressor. Species 9 requires the pressure-control flow path having the capillary tube connected to a second arm of the suction manifold, instead of being connected directly to the shell of the second compressor. Species 10 requires the pressure-control flow path extending from an outlet of the second conduit of a heat exchanger, to the suction chamber of the second compressor, allowing a portion of the working fluid discharged from the compression mechanisms of the first and second compressors to bypass the expansion device and second heat exchanger and be returned to the suction chamber of the second compressor. Because of the divergent subject matter recognized above, the species have acquired a separate status in the art, and therefore, requiring a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); search queries for one species would not necessarily be required for a search for the claims of another species, and prior art applicable to one species would not necessarily be applicable to the other. Therefore, the divergent subject matter would result in a serious search burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024, 09/18/2024, 03/04/2025, 04/09/2025 and 01/15/2026 were filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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:
compression mechanism - a scroll compression mechanism including first and second scrolls (e.g., an orbiting scroll and a non-orbiting scroll or a pair of co-rotating scrolls) that include spiral wraps that cooperate to define compression pockets therebetween, or a rotary compression mechanism (e.g., with an eccentric rotor rotating within a cylinder, and with a reciprocating vane extending into the cylinder), or a reciprocating compression mechanism (e.g., with a piston reciprocating within a cylinder) is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
expansion device - a capillary tube or an expansion valve 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo (US 2015/0114013).
Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses a climate-control system (refer to fig. 3) comprising:
a first compressor (520) including (and necessarily including) a first shell and a first compression mechanism, the first shell including a first suction inlet (820) through which working fluid is drawn into the first compressor (520) for compression in the first compression mechanism;
a second compressor (540) including (and necessarily including) a second shell and a second compression mechanism, the second shell including a second suction inlet (840) through which working fluid is drawn into the second compressor (540) for compression in the second compression mechanism;
a suction manifold (refer to main suction passage 700) having a first arm and a second arm (refer to fig. 3 below), wherein the first arm is coupled to the first suction inlet (820) and is configured to provide working fluid to the first suction inlet, wherein the second arm (refer to fig. 3 below) is coupled to the second suction inlet (840) and is configured to provide working fluid to the second suction inlet; and
a pressure-control flow path (960) coupled to a discharge-pressure region of the climate-control system (refer to fig. 3) and to a suction-pressure region of the second compressor (the second arm of the second compressor as can be seen from fig. 3), wherein the pressure-control flow path (960) includes a conduit and a valve (962) that provide working fluid (and is capable of providing working fluid) to the suction-pressure region of the second compressor at a pressure that is higher than pressure of working fluid in the first arm of the suction manifold (since it hasn’t been compressed).
PNG
media_image1.png
355
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Joo discloses wherein the valve (962) is movable between a first position in which fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path is prevented and a second position in which fluid flow through the pressure-control flow path is allowed (refer to par. 42, wherein valve 962 may include a solenoid valve capable of controlling an on-off operation thereof).
Regarding claim 3, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Joo discloses wherein the pressure-control flow path includes an expansion device (refer to capillary tube 574).
Regarding claim 4, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Joo discloses a control module (including controller 300 as in fig. 4) in communication with the valve (962) and controlling a position of the valve (refer to par. 43, wherein valves 922, 942, and 962 are controlled to adjust an amount of oil collected through each path as in fig. 3) to control lubricant levels in the first and second shells (in the instant case, an on-off operation of the valve is capable of controlling lubricant levels in the first and second shells since the control module has the capability of controlling valve 920, which controls an amount of lubricant through both shells, based on a position of valve 962 as in fig. 4). Note: the recitation “to control lubricant levels in the first and second shells” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Joo discloses wherein the control module controls the position of the valve based on which of the first and second compressors are operating (refer to par. 51, wherein controller 300 receives information from first and second oil level sensors 522 and 542 from the operating compressors in order to actively control a flow path of the collected oil and effectively achieve oil balancing) and which are in a shutdown state (refer to par. 10, wherein the controller has the capability of controlling the position of the valve based in a shutdown state, since when a compressor operates in a state in which an amount of oil therein is non-uniformly maintained, the compressor may break, e.g., shutdown state). Note: the recitation “controls the position of the valve based on which of the first and second compressors are operating and which are in a shutdown state” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Joo discloses wherein the control module (300) controls the position of the valve (962) based on capacity levels of the first and second compressors (refer to par. 29, wherein the first compressor 520 may correspond to a main compressor, and the second compressor 540 may correspond to a sub compressor, and according to performance or load of a system, the first compressor 520 may firstly or primarily operate, and then the second compressor 540 may additionally operate when the first compressor 520 does not have sufficient capacity, and an amount of refrigerant discharged from the first compressor 520 may be greater than an amount of refrigerant discharged from the second compressor 540, therefore, the control module having the capacity to control the position of the valve based on capacity levels of the first and second compressors. Note: the recitation “controls the position of the valve based on capacity levels of the first and second compressors” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations).
Regarding claim 7, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Joo discloses wherein the control module (300, figs. 3-4) controls the position of the valve based on data received from a high-side sensor (refer to first oil level sensor 522 positioned within first compressor) and a low-side sensor (refer to second oil level sensor 542 positioned within second downstream compressor).
Regarding claim 8, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Joo discloses wherein the position of the valve is determined based on a predefined operating-envelope map (refer to the flowchart of the method of controlling oil balancing in the air conditioner as in fig. 5, wherein the term “predefined operating-envelope map” is being considered as an operating envelope is a collection of constraints, boundaries, and operating limits that, if exceeded, put the integrity of assets at risk).
Regarding claim 9, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Joo discloses wherein the first shell includes a first discharge outlet (524) through which working fluid from the first compression mechanism is discharged from the first compressor, the second shell includes a second discharge outlet (544) through which working fluid from the second compression mechanism is discharged from the second compressor, and the climate-control system includes a discharge conduit (conduit which includes pressure sensor 530 as in fig. 3) in fluid communication with the first and second discharge outlets and is configured to receive working fluid discharged from the first and second compressors (refer to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, Joo discloses wherein a first portion of the working fluid discharged from the second compression mechanism bypasses the discharge conduit (conduit which includes pressure sensor 530 as in fig. 3) and flows from the second compression mechanism to the pressure-control flow path (9630), and a second portion of the working fluid discharged from the second compression mechanism bypasses the pressure-control flow path (960) and flows to the discharge conduit (through conduit 545).
Regarding claim 14, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, Joo discloses wherein the climate-control system includes a first heat exchanger (100) that receives working fluid from the discharge conduit (conduit which includes pressure sensor 530 as in fig. 3), the climate-control system includes an expansion device (320) that receives working fluid from the first heat exchanger (100), the climate-control system includes a second heat exchanger (200) that receives working fluid from the expansion device (refer to fig. 3), the expansion device (320) is disposed fluidly between the first (100) and second (200) heat exchangers, a first portion of the working fluid discharged from the second compression mechanism bypasses the expansion device and the second heat exchanger and flows from the second compression mechanism to the pressure-control flow path and back to the second compression mechanism (when the valve 962 is in an open position), and a second portion of the working fluid discharged from the second compression mechanism bypasses the pressure-control flow path (960) and flows to the first heat exchanger, the expansion device and the second heat exchanger (through conduit 545 as in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Joo discloses wherein the pressure-control flow path (960) extends to the second arm of the suction manifold (refer to annotated fig. 3 above).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 2015/0114013).
Regarding claim 11, Joo meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10. Further, Joo discloses wherein the pressure-control flow path extends from a discharge-pressure region of the climate-control system to the second arm of the suction manifold (refer to annotated fig. 3 above), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pressure-control flow path extends from the second shell of the second compressor.
However, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device is significant (the pressure-control flow path extending from the second shell of the second compressor), then to change said configuration would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, Applicant has not disclosed that said configuration solves any stated problem, indicating simply that “…The pressure-control flow path 21 may be fluidly coupled with a high-side or discharge-pressure region of the climate-control system 10 (e.g., a portion of the climate-control system 10 at which the working fluid is at or near a discharge pressure such as the discharge chamber 32, discharge outlet 34, discharge tube 35, discharge conduit 54, or a location downstream of the first heat exchanger 16 and upstream of the expansion device 18, for example) and a suction-pressure region (e.g., the suction chamber 30 and/or the second arm 42 of the suction manifold 39) of the second compressor 14 to selectively raise the pressure of working fluid in the suction-pressure region of the second compressor 14 to force oil to flow (via the lubricant equalization conduit 48) from the lubricant sump 46 of the second compressor 14 to the lubricant sump 46 of the first compressor 12” (see par. 59 of Applicant’s Specification as filed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to cause the climate control system of Joo to provide the pressure-control flow path extending from the second shell of the second compressor because this feature appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Joo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763