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
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 6/22/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 1, the recitation of “…wherein the controller is configured to perform the oil managing action as follows:
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is from 2 to 4:
performing an oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil balancing action includes balancing oil between the compressors,
performing an oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil returning action includes retrieving oil from the multi-compressor refrigeration system to the multi-compressor device, and
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above:
performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running,
performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running,
performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the limitation “…if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above:
performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running,
performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running,
performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running,” is treated similarly to the alternative format “optionally.” In this instance the number of potential compressors in the system can vary from at least 5 to perhaps 100. Thus, there is ambiguity in this limitation.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the controller is configured to perform the oil managing action as follows:
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is from 2 to 4:
performing an oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil balancing action includes balancing oil between the compressors,
performing an oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil returning action includes retrieving oil from the multi-compressor refrigeration system to the multi-compressor device,
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “…wherein the controller is further configured to perform the oil managing action as follows:
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is from 2 to 4:
performing an oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil balancing action includes balancing oil between the compressors,
performing an oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil returning action includes retrieving oil from the multi-compressor refrigeration system to the multi-compressor device, and
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above:
performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running,
performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running,
performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the limitation “…if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above:
performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running,
performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running,
performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running,” is treated similarly to the alternative format “optionally.” In this instance the number of potential compressors in the system can vary from at least 5 to perhaps 100. Thus, there is ambiguity in this limitation.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the controller is further configured to perform the oil managing action as follows:
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is from 2 to 4:
performing an oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil balancing action includes balancing oil between the compressors,
performing an oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil returning action includes retrieving oil from the multi-compressor refrigeration system to the multi-compressor device, and
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Brostrom teaches a multi-compressor refrigeration system and a method for managing oil in a running multi-compressor refrigeration system [0002] comprising
a controller [0037; 0040] configured to control operation of the multi-compressor refrigeration system and a multi-compressor device including compressors [10] which are parallelly coupled [0004; fig 2],
a total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device being at least two and each compressor being equipped with an oil sump [44] and an oil level detection device [see 0037] operatively connected to the controller and configured to detect an oil level in the respective oil sump, the oil sumps being connected through a common oil balancing line [112; 0036-0040], the controller configured to:
- monitor an oil level in the oil sump of each compressor through the respective oil level detection device [0037],
- detect, based on a signal outputted from a respective oil level detection device, that a lack of oil situation occurs in a running compressor, if the oil level in said running compressor reaches a predetermined threshold condition [0045-0051],
- perform an oil managing action if a lack of oil situation is detected for a running compressor, the oil managing action being based on a changing of ON/OFF configurations of the compressors in the multi-compressor device [0045-0051] and including:
if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is from 2 to 4:
performing an oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil balancing action includes balancing oil between the compressors [0045-0051];
performing an oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running, wherein the oil returning action includes retrieving oil from the multi-compressor refrigeration system to the multi-compressor device [0045-0051; where the speed of a running compressor is ramped up to hasten oil return; where the claim is recited in the alternative].
For clarity, the claim had been originally recited in the alternative. Amendments to the claim(s) did not bring sufficient clarity to the claims such that the following limitation will be examined on the merits.
Thus, the limitation “…if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above,
performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running,
performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running,
performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running,” is not examined.
Finally, any claims drawn to the non-selected alternative will be deemed rejected and/or withdrawn from consideration.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 1, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Brostrom.
Regarding Claim 2, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches - outputting a low oil level warning signal from an oil level detection device and to the controller, if the oil level in the oil sump of the respective compressor reaches a predetermined low oil level value [0037].
Regarding Claim 4, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches wherein the oil balancing action includes keeping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and stopping the operation of the other running compressor or of all other running compressors [0058-0062; 0065; fig 6B].
Regarding Claim 6, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches wherein the oil balancing action includes stopping the operation of all compressors [0054; 0065; fig 6A].
Regarding Claim 13, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches wherein the oil level detection device of each compressor includes an oil level sensor or an oil level switch [0037].
Regarding Claim 14, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches providing a low oil level warning, if the lack of oil situation is detected for a running compressor [0037].
Regarding Claim 15, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches wherein, if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above and a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running, the oil managing action includes: - performing the oil balancing action if a total piping length of the multi-compressor refrigeration system is below a predetermined length, - performing the oil returning action if the total piping length of the multi-compressor refrigeration system is above the predetermined length [See the rejection of claim 1, where claim 15 is either rejected because at least one of the alternatives has been properly rejected].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) in view of Nishikawa et al. (JPH05133627A).
Regarding Claim 3, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the predetermined threshold condition is reached if: - the low oil level warning signal outputted from an oil level detection device is continuously outputted for a first predetermined time, or - the low oil level warning signal outputted from an oil level detection device has switched more than a predetermined number of times within a second predetermined time.
However, Nishikawa teaches an oil level control device for a refrigerating apparatus having a plurality of compressors [0001] wherein the predetermined threshold condition is reached if: - the low oil level warning signal outputted from an oil level detection device is continuously outputted for a first predetermined time [0019-0025; figs 2 & 3; where the limitations are claimed in the alternative] 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. provide a system whereby the oil level of the compressors can be held to an appropriate amount [0025].
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 Brostrom to have wherein the predetermined threshold condition is reached if: - the low oil level warning signal outputted from an oil level detection device is continuously outputted for a first predetermined time, or - the low oil level warning signal outputted from an oil level detection device has switched more than a predetermined number of times within a second predetermined time in view of the teachings of Nishikawa 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. provide a system whereby the oil level of the compressors can be held to an appropriate amount.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) in view of Liang et al. (CN214370646U).
Regarding Claim 5, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the oil balancing action includes stopping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of an idle compressor in order to maintain substantially identical the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system.
However, Liang teaches a dual compressor system [0001] wherein the oil balancing action includes stopping the operation of a running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of an idle compressor in order to maintain substantially identical the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system [0037-0039] 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. provide safe operation of the system and thereby improve stability [0039].
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 Brostrom to have wherein the oil balancing action includes stopping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of an idle compressor in order to maintain substantially identical the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in view of the teachings of Liang 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. provide safe operation of the system and thereby improve stability.
Regarding Claim 9, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Brostrom teaches wherein, the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor is higher than two [see fig 4]. Brostrom does not teach where the oil returning action includes stopping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of at least two idle compressors.
However, Liang teaches a dual compressor system [0001] wherein the oil returning action includes stopping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of an idle compressor [0037-0039; a person skilled in the art would recognize that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. Therefore, starting at least two idle compressors would be obvious. See (MPEP 2144.04 VIB)] 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. provide safe operation of the system and thereby improve stability [0039].
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 Brostrom to where the oil returning action includes stopping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of at least two idle compressors in order to maintain substantially identical the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in view of the teachings of Liang 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. provide safe operation of the system and thereby improve stability.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) in view of De Bernardi et al. (US2013/0136622).
Regarding Claim 7, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the oil returning action includes increasing the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system.
However, De Bernardi teaches a dual compressor system [fig 1] wherein the oil returning action includes increasing the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system [0043] 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. ensures a satisfactory oil level in each of the first and second compressors [0043].
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 Brostrom to have wherein the oil returning action includes increasing the workload of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in view of the teachings of De Bernardi 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. ensures a satisfactory oil level in each of the first and second compressors.
Regarding Claim 8, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein, if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor is equal to two, the oil returning action includes keeping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of the idle compressor.
However, De Bernardi teaches a dual compressor system [fig 1] wherein, if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor is equal to two, the oil returning action includes keeping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of the idle compressor [0093-0098] 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. ensures a satisfactory oil level in each of the first and second compressors [0043].
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 Brostrom to have wherein, if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor is equal to two, the oil returning action includes keeping the operation of the running compressor for which a lack of oil situation has been detected and starting the operation of the idle compressor in view of the teachings of De Bernardi 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. ensures a satisfactory oil level in each of the first and second compressors.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) and De Bernardi et al. (US2013/0136622) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JPH05288413A).
Regarding Claim 10, Brostrom, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 above but does not teach wherein the oil returning action additionally includes opening an electronic expansion valve of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device.
However, Yamamoto teaches a dual compressor system [fig 2] wherein the oil returning action additionally includes opening an electronic expansion valve [8] of the multi-compressor refrigeration system [1a, 1b] in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device [0023-0030] 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. ensures sufficient flow or refrigerant during the oil return operation.
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 Brostrom to have wherein the oil returning action additionally includes opening an electronic expansion valve of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device in view of the teachings of Yamamoto 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. ensures sufficient flow or refrigerant during the oil return operation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) in view of Yamamoto (JPH05288413A).
Regarding Claim 11, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the oil returning action includes opening an electronic expansion valve of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device.
However, Yamamoto teaches a dual compressor system [fig 2 wherein the oil returning action includes opening an electronic expansion valve [8] of the multi-compressor refrigeration system [1] in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device [0023-0030] 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. ensures sufficient flow or refrigerant during the oil return operation.
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 Brostrom to have wherein the oil returning action includes opening an electronic expansion valve of the multi-compressor refrigeration system in order to increase suction mass flow of the multi-compressor device in view of the teachings of Yamamoto 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. ensures sufficient flow or refrigerant during the oil return operation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) and Nishikawa et al. (JPH05133627A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Barbier (US5765994).
Regarding Claim 12, Brostrom teaches the invention of claim 3 above but does not teach stopping the operation of all compressors, if, after lapse of a third predetermined time period from the start of the oil managing action, a lack of oil situation is still detected for the compressor for which a lack of oil situation has previously been detected.
However, Barbier teaches a compressor system [fig 1] that stops the operation of a compressors, if, after lapse of a predetermined time period from the start of an oil managing action, a lack of oil situation is still detected for the compressor for which a lack of oil situation has previously been detected [col 7, line 58-col 8, line 9] 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. ensures compressor protection.
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 Brostrom to stop the operation of all compressors, if, after lapse of a third predetermined time period from the start of the oil managing action, a lack of oil situation is still detected for the compressor for which a lack of oil situation has previously been detected in view of the teachings of Barbier 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. ensures compressor protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 16 that Brostrom et al. (US2017/0045052) does not teach “…if the total number of compressors in the multi-compressor device is 5 or above: performing the oil balancing action, if more than a half of the total number of compressors are running, performing the oil balancing action and/or the oil returning action, if a half or less of the total number of compressors are running and at least two compressors are running, performing the oil returning action, if only one compressor is running.” Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is directed to the 112 rejections above. Additionally, Applicant clearly show in figs 5 and figs 7 that the limitations of claims 1 and 16 are different embodiments. Amendments to the claims to positively and simultaneously include two embodiments is problematic. Additionally, reciting a limitation where the number of compressors is greater than 5 compressors is unclear because one skilled in the art would not necessarily know the boundary of the limitation. How many compressors does the system have? Thus, a control scheme cannot be adequately theorized to where one skilled in the art would know when infringement occurs. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights