CTNF 18/730,999 CTNF 96691 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 10-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024, 04/14/2025 and 06/26/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “Provided is…”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 2 , the recitation of “...wherein the plurality of oil separators includes a first oil separator provided closest to the compressor on the traveling path of the refrigerant …,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the traveling path of refrigerant has been broadly claimed as the path of refrigerant along the compressor and the plurality of oil separators (Note that the path is circular to and from the compressor). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation does not distinguish the first oil separator, because “closest to the compressor on the traveling path” may be interpreted as the closest oil separator downstream of the compressor on the traveling path, or the closest oil separator upstream of the compressor on the traveling path. Claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims, and therefore must not improperly import limitations from the specification [MPEP 2111.01]. Upon review of the specification [¶ 0073], the Examiner understands the limitation is intended to refer to the downstream oil separator. However the claim language itself is not considered to meet the minimum required threshold for clarity and precision in order to establish the metes and bounds of the claims without importing understanding from the specification, and are thus rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as well as all claims depending therefrom. Regarding Claim 5 , the recitation of “...a second flow resistance body…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a second flow resistance body may exist without the existence of a first flow resistance body. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Regarding Claim 7 , the recitation of “...a second flow resistance body…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a second flow resistance body may exist without the existence of a first flow resistance body. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (JP 2017089988 A, hereinafter “Tanaka”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Tanaka teaches a compression system [Figs. 1-4] comprising: a compressor [10] configured to compress and discharge a refrigerant [¶ 0009]; a plurality of oil separators [11, 12] configured to separate oil included in the refrigerant discharged from the compressor [¶ 0009]; and a refrigerant pipe [10a] configured to connect the compressor and the plurality of oil separators to form a travelling path of the refrigerant [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], wherein the plurality of oil separators are connected in series along the travelling path of the refrigerant [¶ 0008; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection; refrigerant flows from 10 to 11 via 10a, wherein 11 is further connected to 12 in series] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA PNG media_image1.png 484 474 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu (JP H03286198 A) . Regarding Claim 2 , Tanaka teaches the compression system of claim 1 above and Tanaka further teaches comprising: a connection pipe [A; see annotated Fig. 1]; and a recovery pipe [B; see annotated Fig. 1] for recovering the oil from the plurality of oil separators to the compressor [Fig. 1; Abstract; line 10b receives oil from 13 and 14], wherein the plurality of oil separators includes a first oil separator [11] provided closest to the compressor on the travelling path of the refrigerant [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] and a second oil separator [12] provided next to the first oil separator [¶ 0030; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the connection pipe connects the first oil separator and the second oil separator [Fig. 1; lines 13 and 14 are connected via line 10b], and the recovery pipe connects the first oil separator and the compressor [¶ 0028-0035; Fig. 1; oil separator 11 provides oil to the compressor via pathways 13 and 10b]. Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the oil is to flow between each of the plurality of oil separators. However, Shimizu teaches an oil level control device [Fig. 2] comprising a plurality of compressors [1] with a plurality of oil separators [2], such that the separators receive an output from the compressor [¶ 0001]. The oil separators are interlinked between each other via at least a communication pipe [5], wherein the communication pipes are configured to control the flow of oil between the plurality of oil separators so as to equalize the oil in each separator [¶ 0001]. Shimizu discloses that an oil equalizing means to redistribute oil across a plurality of oil separators reduces the problem of uneven oil distribution to a plurality of compressors, thereby improving operations of the system [¶ 0001]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide a plurality of oil separators with oil equalizing means) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. improve distribution of oil), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing an oil equalizing means to redistribute oil across a plurality of oil separators reduces the problem of uneven oil distribution to a plurality of compressors, thereby improving operations of the system [¶ 0001]. Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have wherein the oil is to flow between each of the plurality of oil separators, in view of the teachings of Shimizu, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing an oil equalizing means to redistribute oil across a plurality of oil separators reduces the problem of uneven oil distribution to a plurality of compressors, thereby improving operations of the system. Regarding Claim 3 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 2 above and Tanaka teaches wherein the connection pipe comprises a first flow resistance body [capillary tube, not labeled but shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 4)] configured to provide resistance to a flow of the oil [¶ 0034, 0037; capillary tube may be used to set a flow resistance of the oil]. Regarding Claim 4 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 3 above and Tanaka teaches wherein the first flow resistance body is formed in a capillary structure on the connection pipe [¶ 0034, 0037] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and Shimizu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kihara et al. (US 20180051704 A1, hereinafter “Kihara”) . Regarding Claim 5 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 2 above and while Tanaka generally discloses a first and second capillary structure disposed to regulate the flow of oil from the separators to the compressor [¶ 0034, 0037], Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the recovery pipe comprises a second flow resistance body configured to provide resistance to a flow of the oil. However, Kihara teaches a heat pump [Fig. 1] comprising a compressor [16] configured to receive a flow of oil from a separator [30] via an oil return channel [80], wherein the oil return channel may comprise a plurality of capillary structures [84, 88] connected in series, in order to provide a resistance for the oil returning to the compressor at a regulated pressure [¶ 0052-0056]. Kihara further discloses that the capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel [¶ 0058-0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the second flow resistance body as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the second flow resistance body 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 capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel, thereby improving control of the system [¶ 0058-0061]. Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have wherein the recovery pipe comprises a second flow resistance body configured to provide resistance to a flow of the oil, in view of the teachings of Kihara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel, thereby improving control of the system. Regarding Claim 6 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 5 above and Kihara teaches wherein the second flow resistance body [88] is formed in a capillary structure on the recovery pipe [¶ 0054-0056; capillary 88 receives oil to be sent towards the compressor]. Regarding Claim 7 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 2 above and Tanaka teaches wherein the connection pipe comprises a first flow resistance body [capillary tube, not labeled but shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 4)] configured to provide resistance to a flow of the oil [¶ 0034, 0037; capillary tube may be used to set a flow resistance of the oil]. While Tanaka generally discloses a first and second capillary structure disposed to regulate the flow of oil from the separators to the compressor [¶ 0034, 0037], Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the recovery pipe comprises a second flow resistance body configured to provide resistance to the flow of the oil, and flow resistance of the second flow resistance body is less than flow resistance of the first flow resistance body. However, Kihara teaches a heat pump [Fig. 1] comprising a compressor [16] configured to receive a flow of oil from a separator [30] via an oil return channel [80], wherein the oil return channel may comprise a plurality of capillary structures [84, 88] connected in series, in order to provide a resistance for the oil returning to the compressor at a regulated pressure [¶ 0052-0056]. Kihara additionally discloses a scenario wherein the pressure loss of the first capillaries 84 are greater than that of capillaries 88 [¶ 0063]. Kihara further discloses that the capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel [¶ 0058-0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the second flow resistance body as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the second flow resistance body 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 capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel, thereby improving control of the system [¶ 0058-0061]. Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have wherein the recovery pipe comprises a second flow resistance body configured to provide resistance to a flow of the oil, in view of the teachings of Kihara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing capillaries in series provide a means to further regulate the flow of oil, as well as providing a necessary structure to determine any abnormalities in the oil return channel, thereby improving control of the system. Regarding Claim 8 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 7 above and Kihara teaches wherein the first flow resistance body and the second flow resistance body are formed in a capillary structure [Fig. 1; ¶ 0054], and a length of the second flow resistance body is formed to be shorter than a length of the first flow resistance body. While Kihara does not explicitly disclose the relative length of the capillaries 84 and 88, Kihara does disclose that the downstream capillary 88 may have a lower pressure loss than that of the upstream capillary 84. It is commonsensical and well known in the art that the length of a capillary tube is proportional to its induced pressure loss (See the known Darcy-Weisbach equation L = ∆ P * π * d 4 32 * μ * Q and the relation between a tube’s length ( L) and pressure drop across the capillary tube ( delta P ); see https ://calculatorshub.net/mechanical-calculators/capillary-tube-length-calculator/ as evidence of the known physical phenomenon and relationships). Thus, the length of the capillary tube is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the capability to increase or decrease the pressure drop of a fluid in the capillary tube based on the tube’s length. Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference (i.e. providing the downstream capillary with less pressure drop), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation (i.e. modifying the length), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the length of the second flow resistance body is formed to be shorter than a length of the first flow resistance body in order to provide a capillary section with less flow resistance, thereby improving the flow control capabilities of the system. Regarding Claim 9 , Tanaka, as modified, teaches the compression system of claim 7 above and Kihara teaches wherein the first flow resistance body and the second flow resistance body are formed in a capillary structure [Fig. 1; ¶ 0054], and a flow path cross-sectional area of the second flow resistance body is formed to be wider than a flow path cross-sectional area of the first flow resistance body. While Kihara does not explicitly disclose the relative flow path cross-sectional area of the capillaries 84 and 88, Kihara does disclose that the downstream capillary 88 may have a lower pressure loss than that of the upstream capillary 84. It is commonsensical and well known in the art that the diameter of a capillary tube is inversely-proportional to its induced pressure loss (See the known Darcy-Weisbach equation L = ∆ P * π * d 4 32 * μ * Q and the relation between a tube’s diameter ( d) and pressure drop across the capillary tube ( delta P ); see https ://calculatorshub.net/mechanical-calculators/capillary-tube-length-calculator/ as evidence of the known physical phenomenon and relationships; specifically rearranging the Darcy-Weisbach equation for delta P is shown as ∆ P = L ( 32 * μ * Q ) π * d 4 ). Thus, the diameter (or cross-sectional area) of the capillary tube is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the capability to increase or decrease the pressure drop of a fluid in the capillary tube based on the tube’s diameter (i.e. as the diameter increases, the change in pressure decreases). Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference (i.e. providing the downstream capillary with less pressure drop), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation (i.e. modifying the diameter), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the flow path cross-sectional area of the second flow resistance body is formed to be wider than a flow path cross-sectional area of the first flow resistance body, in order to provide a capillary section with less flow resistance, thereby improving the flow control capabilities of the system. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00. 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 at (571) 270-5054. 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. /KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/730,999 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights